State v. White
2021 Ohio 126
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Adrian White was indicted on multiple counts (including felonious assault, trafficking, failure to comply, firearms offenses, possessing criminal tools, resisting arrest) arising from April 15, 2019 conduct; several counts and specifications were nolled or amended.
- In March 2020 White pleaded guilty to an amended seven-count indictment and agreed to forfeit property and to a joint recommended prison term of 5 to 7.5 years, including agreement he would not be released before serving five years.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of a minimum of five and a maximum of six years, with three years of mandatory postrelease control.
- On appeal White challenged the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Act as violating the jury-trial right, separation of powers, and due process.
- The court held White’s sentence was authorized by law and within the jointly recommended range, and that White failed to raise any constitutional objection at sentencing.
- The court declined to consider the constitutional challenges raised for the first time on appeal (and found no plain-error showing) and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (White) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether White can challenge his sentence on appeal | Sentence authorized by law and within joint recommendation; no timely objection | Reagan Tokes sentencing scheme is unconstitutional (jury trial, separation of powers, due process) | Affirmed; sentence lawful and within recommended range |
| Whether Reagan Tokes violates the right to a jury trial | Not addressed at sentencing; State defends statute implicitly | Statute allows judge-determined maximum extension, infringing jury factfinding | Court refused to reach this claim (not raised below) |
| Whether Reagan Tokes violates separation of powers | Not addressed at sentencing; State opposes claim | Statute vests executive/administrative power in judges, violating separation | Court declined to address on appeal for lack of preservation |
| Whether Reagan Tokes violates due process | Not addressed at sentencing; State opposes claim | Indeterminate/extended sentence scheme denies due process | Court declined to address on appeal and found no plain error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Quarterman, 19 N.E.3d 900 (Ohio 2014) (sets plain-error review standard for appellate review)