State v. Lasure
2022 Ohio 650
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Gavin L. Lasure was indicted on six sexual-offense counts, pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea to two counts of sexual battery (second-degree felonies), and the remaining counts were dismissed.
- Plea form and sentencing specified mandatory five years of post-release control (PRC) for the sex offenses.
- Trial court sentenced Lasure to consecutive four-year terms on each count, yielding an aggregate Reagan Tokes indefinite term of 8 to 10 years, and imposed five years PRC and Tier III sex-offender classification.
- Lasure appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) PRC notifications at sentencing were inaccurate; (2) the Reagan Tokes Law’s indefinite-sentencing provisions are unconstitutional; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging Reagan Tokes.
- The court reviewed PRC-notification claims under statutory duties from State v. Grimes and reviewed constitutional challenges for plain error (because they were not raised below).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lasure) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRC notifications accurate | Trial court told Lasure he would serve mandatory 5 years PRC and warned violations could return him to prison up to one-half his stated term; plea form also warned about 9‑month residential sanctions. | Court failed to inform Lasure of consequences of committing a new felony on PRC under R.C. 2929.141 and did not fully explain R.C. 2943.032 nine‑month sanction. | Notifications were sufficient under Grimes; sentencing entry incorporated the warnings; first assignment overruled. |
| Reagan Tokes unconstitutional (Separation of powers, due process, Sixth Amendment jury right) | Reagan Tokes is constitutional; prior precedent in this district upheld its provisions; due process and jury-trial challenges are not ripe absent ODRC action. | Indefinite sentence violates Sixth Amendment, separation of powers, and due process. | No plain error; court relied on precedent upholding Reagan Tokes; separation‑of‑powers and facial due‑process challenges rejected; jury-trial/due-process concerns held not ripe. Second assignment overruled. |
| Ineffective assistance for not objecting to Reagan Tokes | Counsel not ineffective because constitutional challenges lack merit; even if raised, they would have failed so no prejudice under Strickland. | Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the constitutionality of Reagan Tokes, causing prejudice. | No deficient-prejudice showing: underlying objections fail, so counsel’s omission caused no prejudice. Third assignment overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (trial court must notify offender at sentencing about mandatory post-release control and consequences for violations)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (failure to raise constitutional challenge at trial is waiver)
- In re M.D., 38 Ohio St.3d 149 (appellate discretion to consider waived constitutional arguments under plain‑error standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)