2023 Ohio 77
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Defendant Kato Laws was charged in four Cuyahoga County cases and pleaded guilty to multiple offenses including aggravated robbery (first-degree), participating in a criminal gang (second-degree), and several third- and fourth-degree felonies as part of a plea deal recommending 6–10 years' imprisonment.
- The plea and sentencing involved offenses covered by the Reagan Tokes Law (indefinite sentences for first- and second-degree non-life felonies). Defense counsel repeatedly objected to the law’s constitutionality.
- At sentencing the court imposed indefinite sentences under Reagan Tokes with specified minimum and maximum terms (e.g., 4–6 years on some counts) and imposed a consecutive 3-year firearm specification on one count.
- The court gave a general Reagan Tokes advisement at the plea and again at sentencing, but its remarks used phrases like “under certain circumstances” rather than the precise statutory descriptions of the DRC’s specified determinations and repeat rebuttal possibility.
- Laws appealed on two grounds: (1) Reagan Tokes is unconstitutional (due process, Sixth Amendment, separation of powers, vagueness, and delegation concerns); and (2) the trial court failed to provide all advisements required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of the sentence (following this court’s en banc decision in Delvallie) but held the court did not fully comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) and remanded for resentencing solely to provide the missing advisements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Reagan Tokes indefinite sentences | State: law is constitutional; Delvallie controls and upholds scheme | Laws: law violates due process, Sixth Amendment jury right, separation of powers, is vague and delegates too much authority to DRC | Court: Overruled constitutional challenge; upheld under Delvallie |
| Failure to give full R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) advisements at sentencing | State: (implicit) advisement sufficient or error harmless | Laws: court failed to notify of the DRC’s specific rebuttal determinations, repeat rebuttals, and mandatory release at maximum term — must remand | Court: Trial court did not fully notify; remanded for resentencing solely to provide required advisements |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Delvallie, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist. 2022) (en banc decision upholding Reagan Tokes constitutionality)
- State v. Tanner, 472 N.E.2d 689 (Ohio 1984) (void-for-vagueness/fair-notice standard)