State v. Thomason, 2022 Ohio 3873

In Oct. 2021 Thomason was indicted on ten felony sex-related counts; he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to five counts (rape — 1st deg.; two counts of gross sexual imposition — 4th deg.; importuning — 5th deg.; disseminating matter harmful to juveniles — 5th deg.). Remaining counts were dismissed.
The trial court imposed an indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law: 10 years to 15 years on the rape count (Count 3) plus consecutive terms on the other counts, for a total of 14 years 6 months to 19 years 6 months.
The court also imposed five years mandatory post-release control and Tier III sex-offender classification.
At sentencing Thomason objected, arguing the Reagan Tokes indefinite-sentencing scheme is unconstitutional (separation of powers, due process, right to jury trial). The trial court overruled the objection.
Thomason appealed, raising three assignments of error challenging the Reagan Tokes Law on separation-of-powers, due-process, and jury-trial grounds.
The appellate court affirmed, relying on its prior decisions (including State v. Ball and other Third District precedents) holding the Reagan Tokes indefinite-sentencing provisions constitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Separation of powers: Does Reagan Tokes improperly delegate sentencing power to the executive?	State: statute is a lawful legislative sentencing framework; no improper delegation.	Thomason: indefinite sentence lets executive (parole authority) extend incarceration beyond judicially imposed minimum, violating separation of powers.	Court: Overruled; prior Third Dist. precedent finds no facial separation-of-powers violation.
Due process: Does indeterminate maximum violate due process?	State: statutory scheme provides adequate notice and procedures; no due-process defect.	Thomason: indeterminate maximum lacks required procedural protections and vagueness, violating due process.	Court: Overruled; scheme does not infringe due-process rights under the Court’s prior rulings.
Right to jury trial: Does allowing post-sentencing factfinding to affect maximum term violate jury-trial right?	State: sentencing framework does not require jury factfinding that alters statutory penalties.	Thomason: increases to incarceration length based on post-sentencing administrative review impinge on jury’s role.	Court: Overruled; court followed Ball and related precedent rejecting jury-trial challenge.

No authorities with official reporter citations are relied on in the opinion; the court based its decision on recent Third District slip opinions (e.g., State v. Ball, 2022-Ohio-1549) and other unpublished/appellate Ohio decisions addressing Reagan Tokes.