State v. Stenson
2021 Ohio 2256
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- May 29, 2019: following an altercation at a graduation party, appellant Darius Stenson and a codefendant fired across a roadway; the codefendant’s bullet killed the victim.
- Detectives discovered a firearm in an alley after hearing a recorded jail call in which Stenson asked a friend to recover a “hat”; ballistics matched recovered bullets.
- Indictment charged Stenson with complicity to murder, felonious assault, and discharge of a firearm on/near prohibited premises; firearm specifications were included.
- February 18, 2020: Stenson entered Alford pleas to discharge of a firearm (with firearm specification) and to an added aggravated-assault count; remaining counts were dismissed per the plea agreement.
- March 3, 2020 sentencing: trial court imposed an indefinite term of 4–6 years for the firearm discharge plus a mandatory consecutive 3-year firearm specification; a 17-month aggravated-assault term was imposed concurrent with the 4–6 years but consecutive to the 3-year specification. Stenson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Stenson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Reagan Tokes Act (S.B. 201) violates separation of powers | State: sentencing under Reagan Tokes is lawful; administrative review by ODRC is authorized by statute | Stenson: statutory scheme unlawfully delegates judicial power to ODRC (separation-of-powers violation) | Not ripe for review on direct appeal; assignment dismissed (court certified conflict to Ohio Supreme Court) |
| Whether the indefinite sentence under Reagan Tokes violates due process | State: defendant’s due-process challenge is premature prior to any ODRC extension action | Stenson: indefinite sentence deprives him of due process rights under U.S. and Ohio Constitutions | Not ripe for review on direct appeal; assignment dismissed (same certification) |
| Whether the sentence is excessive/contrary to law for failure to weigh R.C. 2929.12 mitigating factors | State: trial court considered applicable factors and complied with statutory sentencing requirements | Stenson: trial court improperly weighed/failed to favor mitigating factors when imposing consecutive service with the firearm specification | Not well-taken; appellate court will not reweigh R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors (Jones); consecutive service of the specification was mandatory under R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (permits entry of a guilty plea while protesting innocence under certain conditions)
- State v. Maddox, 159 N.E.3d 1150 (Ohio 2020) (held constitutional challenges to Reagan Tokes not ripe before expiration of minimum term and any ODRC extension; certified conflict noted)
- State v. Sawyer, 165 N.E.3d 844 (6th Dist. 2020) (describes Reagan Tokes indefinite-sentence framework and ODRC extension/rebuttal process)
- Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., 613 N.E.2d 1032 (Ohio 1993) (sets standards for certifying conflicts among courts of appeals)