2022 Ohio 4204
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Defendant Martez Sharp pleaded guilty in two consolidated Cuyahoga County cases to qualifying felonies: aggravated robbery (first degree) in both cases, felonious assault (second degree) in one case, and related weapons offenses; firearm specifications accompanied the robbery counts.
- Under Ohio law (Reagan Tokes Law), those qualifying first- and second-degree felonies require an indefinite prison sentence (statutory minimum and maximum terms).
- At sentencing the trial court refused to apply the Reagan Tokes Law, finding its indefinite-sentencing provisions unconstitutional, and imposed an aggregate four-year concurrent term instead.
- The State appealed, arguing the trial court erred by declining to apply the Reagan Tokes Law and failing to impose the statutorily required indefinite sentences.
- The Eighth District, relying on its en banc decision in State v. Delvallie, held the Reagan Tokes Law constitutional, sustained the State’s appeal, reversed the sentences, and remanded for resentencing under the Reagan Tokes scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Reagan Tokes Law violates the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right | The law is constitutional and does not infringe the Sixth Amendment | The law permits judge-determined facts to increase punishment, violating the Sixth Amendment | Rejected; court followed Delvallie and held no Sixth Amendment violation |
| Whether the Reagan Tokes Law violates separation of powers | The law is a lawful legislative scheme for sentencing that respects branch boundaries | The law improperly delegates sentencing/punitive authority to the executive, violating separation of powers | Rejected; court held no separation-of-powers violation |
| Whether the Reagan Tokes Law violates due process | The law affords constitutionally adequate procedures and notice | The law is vague or otherwise denies due process rights | Rejected; court held no due process violation |
| Whether failing to impose the mandatory indefinite sentence renders the sentence contrary to law and appealable by the State | The trial court’s omission of the mandatory Reagan Tokes sentence is a sentence contrary to law, permitting appellate review | The trial court declined to apply the statute on constitutional grounds | Agreed with State; omission is contrary to law. Sentences reversed and remanded for resentencing under Reagan Tokes |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Delvallie, 185 N.E.3d 536 (Ohio 2022) (en banc decision rejecting constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law)
- State v. Underwood, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (holding that a sentence failing to impose a mandatory statutory provision is contrary to law)
- State v. Harper, 159 N.E.3d 248 (Ohio 2020) (limits of appellate review when parties do not challenge the imposed sentence)
- State v. Henderson, 162 N.E.3d 776 (Ohio 2020) (similar principles on scope of sentencing review)