2023 Ohio 1043
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- In August 2020 Riggins was indicted; relevant counts charged him with participating in a criminal gang (second-degree felony, Count 1) and carrying a concealed weapon (fourth-degree felony, Count 17); a related weapons count (Count 18) was nolled.
- In May 2022 Riggins pleaded guilty to an amended Count 1 (firearm specifications removed) and Count 17; he agreed to forfeiture of the firearm; the court imposed community control but also stayed an immediate prison term.
- Over Riggins’s objection the trial court sentenced Count 1 under the Reagan Tokes Law to an indefinite term: a two-year stated minimum and a three-year maximum; Count 17 received a concurrent six-month term.
- Riggins appealed arguing the Reagan Tokes Law (Amended S.B. 201) is unconstitutional as applied to first- and second-degree qualifying felonies (due process, separation of powers, and jury-trial rights), and that imposing an S.B. 201 indefinite sentence was plain error.
- Riggins acknowledged the Eighth District’s en banc decision in State v. Delvallie rejected these constitutional challenges but preserved the arguments for further review.
- The panel affirmed the sentence, expressly relying on Delvallie; two judges noted separate views in Delvallie, with one judge constrained to follow it and another concurring but expressing disagreement.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Riggins's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Reagan Tokes Law’s indefinite sentence for qualifying felonies violates due process | The State defends the statute’s validity; sentencing was lawful | Riggins contends it violates due process | Rejected; affirmed under Delvallie |
| Whether the Reagan Tokes Law violates separation of powers | Statute is constitutional and within legislative authority | Riggins argues it improperly delegates judicial power to the executive | Rejected; affirmed under Delvallie |
| Whether the Reagan Tokes Law infringes the right to trial by jury | State maintains sentencing framework does not violate jury trial rights | Riggins asserts maximum exposure determined by statute (not jury) infringes the jury right | Rejected; affirmed under Delvallie |
| Whether the trial court plainly erred by imposing an S.B. 201 indefinite sentence | State argues sentence was authorized and properly imposed | Riggins argues plain error because law is unconstitutional | Rejected; court affirmed sentence (no plain error) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Delvallie, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist. 2022) (Eighth District en banc decision rejecting constitutional attacks on the Reagan Tokes Law)
- State v. Harper, 159 N.E.3d 248 (Ohio 2020) (Ohio Supreme Court authority cited regarding remand and termination of bail pending appeal)
- State v. Henderson, 162 N.E.3d 776 (Ohio 2020) (Ohio Supreme Court authority cited regarding remand and post‑appeal procedure)