State v. Tupuola
2021 Ohio 2577
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Cassandra A. Tupuola was indicted for multiple offenses arising from a May 3, 2020 incident in which she fired a pistol at a former partner’s moving car while her two minor children were in her vehicle; spent shell casing and videographic evidence were recovered.
- She pled guilty to attempted murder (with a three-year firearm specification) and two counts of child endangering; the State nolled the remaining counts and made no sentencing recommendation.
- Plea paperwork and colloquy informed Tupuola about the Reagan Tokes indefinite-sentence scheme and the Violent Offender Database (VOD) enrollment and rebuttal procedures; she acknowledged receipt of written VOD notice.
- At sentencing the court designated her as a violent offender, imposed concurrent terms resulting in an aggregate minimum of 10 years and aggregate maximum of 13.5 years (including the mandatory firearm term), and ordered a presentence investigation.
- Tupuola appealed, raising four assignments: (1) Reagan Tokes is unconstitutional (separation of powers/jury trial), (2) ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple bases), (3) trial court failed to properly notify her about VOD rebuttal procedures, and (4) sentence was disproportionate.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Tupuola's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Reagan Tokes indefinite sentencing | Challenge is premature and was not raised below; court should not address on direct appeal | Reagan Tokes violates separation of powers and jury-trial rights as applied to first-/second-degree felonies | Not ripe for review and waived for failure to raise in trial court; Assignment overruled |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to challenge Reagan Tokes | Counsel’s failure to litigate a non-ripe constitutional claim was not prejudicial | Counsel ineffective for not raising constitutional challenge to Reagan Tokes | Overruled — no prejudice shown and claim mirrors other precedents rejecting such ineffective-assistance claims |
| VOD notice and counsel’s failure to move to rebut presumption | Court substantially complied: written notice, plea colloquy reference, and sentencing advisement; facts make rebuttal infeasible | Trial court failed to personally advise of rebuttal procedure; counsel ineffective for not filing a motion to rebut | Overruled — statutory notice provided in writing and verbally; record shows Tupuola was sole perpetrator so rebuttal would be "nigh impossible," and counsel’s performance not prejudicial |
| Disproportionate sentence / sentencing error | Sentence is within statutory limits and court considered required statutory factors | Sentence failed to account for domestic-violence history and was disproportionate | Overruled — sentence within permissible range; no clear-and-convincing showing that trial court erred under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1986) (failure to raise constitutional challenge at trial ordinarily waives issue on appeal)
- State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2020) (Crim.R. 11 substantial-compliance framework for non-constitutional collateral consequences)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standards for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
- State v. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 7 (Ohio 2008) (distinguishing punitive from collateral consequences in offender-registration contexts)