State v. Stearns, 2022 Ohio 4245

Defendant Reginald Stearns pleaded guilty to seven counts arising from multiple fentanyl-related sales and related possession/forfeiture specifications; police later seized between 10 and 20 grams of a fentanyl-related compound during a search.
The trial court imposed concurrent sentences, including an indefinite mandatory term under the Reagan Tokes Act of 8 to 12 years (aggregate), plus concurrent one-year terms on several lesser counts.
Stearns raised six assignments of error on appeal: (1) ripeness of constitutional challenges to Reagan Tokes; (2) Reagan Tokes is void for vagueness; (3) violates separation of powers; (4) violates right to jury trial; (5) violates due process/fair trial rights; and (6) trial court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.12 factors.
While the appeal was pending, the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Maddox rendered constitutional challenges to Reagan Tokes ripe; the court therefore reviewed Stearns’ constitutional claims.
The Eleventh District rejected Stearns’ vagueness, separation-of-powers, jury-trial, and due-process challenges (following this court’s Moran II and Taylor decisions and other district-court decisions), and affirmed sentencing, finding the trial court expressly considered R.C. 2929.12 and that appellate reweighing is not permitted under Jones/Marcum precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Stearns)	Held
Ripeness of constitutional challenges to Reagan Tokes	Challenges are not yet ripe in some earlier cases	Challenges are ripe post-Maddox and should be reviewed	Ripeness resolved in Stearns’ favor (Maddox): appeals court may review the constitutional claims
Void-for-vagueness challenge to Reagan Tokes	Statute provides constitutionally adequate standards	Statute is vague as to when/why longer term will be imposed	Rejected; statute not void for vagueness under this court’s precedent
Separation-of-powers challenge	Legislature improperly delegated sentencing power to executive/parole	Reagan Tokes violates separation of powers by allowing post-sentence extension	Rejected; court follows Moran II/Taylor: no separation-of-powers violation
Sixth/Fifth Amendment jury and due-process claims against Reagan Tokes	Indeterminate portion implicates right to jury and due process because facts affecting maximum are not jury-found	Indeterminate term scheme violates jury/due-process protections	Rejected; court finds no jury or due-process violation under its precedent
R.C. 2929.12 sentencing-factor claim	Trial court failed to properly consider and apply seriousness/recidivism factors	Trial court expressly considered and balanced R.C. 2929.12; appellate court may not reweigh factors	Rejected; trial court stated consideration on the record and in entry; Jones/Marcum limit appellate reweighing

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (clarifies appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) for felony-sentence review)
State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (2020) (limits appellate review under R.C. 2953.08—appellate court may not independently reweigh R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are general guidance; sentencing court has discretion and must consider listed factors)
State v. Toles, 166 Ohio St.3d 397 (2021) (applies Jones and affirms limits on appellate reweighing of R.C. 2929.12)
State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295 (1988) (presumption that sentencing court considered relevant factors even if record silent)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines "clear and convincing" standard)