State v. Long
2021 Ohio 2672
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Kejuan J. Long pleaded guilty under a plea deal to: having weapons while under disability (3rd°), possession of cocaine with forfeiture spec. (3rd°), and aggravated trafficking in drugs with forfeiture spec. (2nd°); six other counts were dismissed.
- Trial court imposed concurrent sentences: 12 months (weapons), 24 months (possession), and an indefinite mandatory sentence of 6 years minimum to 9 years maximum for aggravated trafficking under the Reagan Tokes Law.
- Long appealed, raising three assignments: (1) Reagan Tokes is unconstitutional (separation of powers, due process, jury trial); (2) his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because of an inadequate Rule 11(C) colloquy regarding the indefinite sentence; (3) the sentence is contrary to law because the court failed to give required statutory notices under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) at sentencing.
- The State conceded the sentencing-notice error under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).
- The Fourth District: overruled assignments (1) and (2) (refusing to reach the Reagan Tokes constitutional challenge as not ripe and finding Rule 11 substantial compliance/no prejudice), sustained assignment (3), vacated part of the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Reagan Tokes Law | Reagan Tokes violates separation of powers, due process, and jury-trial rights because ODRC can extend incarceration without judicial or jury proceedings. | Long argued statutory provisions allowing ODRC to rebut presumptive release are unconstitutional. | Not ripe for review; appeal premature because Long has not served his minimum term and ODRC has not exercised the challenged powers. |
| Validity of guilty plea under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) | Not applicable (appellee/state defended plea validity). | Long argued the court’s explanation of the indefinite sentence was confusing and therefore plea was not knowing/voluntary. | Trial court substantially complied with Rule 11; plea was knowing/voluntary. No prejudice shown even if explanation was imperfect. |
| Sentencing notice under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) | State conceded error. | Long argued trial court failed to provide required statutory notices about ODRC rebuttal process at sentencing. | Sustained: court failed to give required notice at sentencing; sentence contrary to law; vacated in part and remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (constitutional waiver standards for pleas)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (parole-revocation due process framework)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (due process for prison disciplinary/good-time withdrawal)
- State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1, 2020-Ohio-2765 (plea-waiver and Rule 11 standards)
- State v. Stone, 43 Ohio St.2d 163 (purpose of Rule 11 and plea colloquy)
- State v. Tate, 140 Ohio St.3d 442, 2014-Ohio-3667 (limitation on considering post‑record developments)
- Hayward v. Summa Health Sys./Akron City Hosp., 139 Ohio St.3d 238, 2014-Ohio-1913 (prejudice must appear on face of record)
- Wagner v. Roche Laboratories, 85 Ohio St.3d 457 (standard for showing prejudice on record)