State v. BrazoState v. Brazo
For Plaintiff-Appellee
WILLIAM C. HAYES PROSECUTING ATTORNEY PAULA M. SAWYERS ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 20 Sоuth Second Street, Fourth Floor Newark, Ohio 43055
For Defendant-Appellant
KIMBERLY SECCURO 720 S. High Street Columbus, Ohio 43206
{¶1} This matter is before us on remand from the Ohio Supreme Court. In Defendant-Appellant Stephen Brazo‘s direct appeal, State v. Brazos, 5th Dist. Licking 2021-CA-16, 2021-Ohio-4006, Judge W. Scott Gwin concurring in part and dissenting in part, we declined to address his sole assignment of error which challenged the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Act, as we found the challenge was not ripe for review. In State v. Maddox, ---N.E.3d---, 2022-Ohio-764, however, the Suprеme Court of Ohio found constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes Act аre ripe for review on direct appeal. We therefore herein address Appellant‘s sole assignment of error.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} A recitation of the underlying facts in this mаtter is unnecessary for our resolution of this appeal on remand.
{¶3} On Novembеr 21, 2019, Appellant Stephen Brazo was indicted on one count of Aggravated Possession of Drugs (Methamphetamine), a violation of
{¶4} On October 8, 2020, the date scheduled for trial, Appellant arrived approximately an hour and a half late. At that time, Appellant indicated that he wished to plead guilty to the charge.
{¶5} Appellant completed a plea form which his attorney reviewed with him and which he stated that he understood. The trial court reviewed with Appellant the rights that hе was giving up by pleading to the Indictment, including the right to a trial, the right to have the State prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to confront his
{¶6} After Appellant was advised of the facts of the case as set forth above Appellant was advised as to the nature of the charge against him and the maximum penаlty he could face if he pled to the charge. (T. at 6-10, 14-16).
{¶7} Appellant agreed with the facts as presented by Appellee. (T. at 16).
{¶8} The trial court ultimately found Appellant guilty based on his plea, and sentenced Appellant to three (3) tо four and a half (4 ½) years in prison, pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law. (T. at 25). (See Oсt. 8, 2020 Judgment Entry).
{¶9} Appellant then moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied Appеllant‘s motion to withdraw.
{¶10} The assignments of error left unaddressed by this Court on direct appeal are as follow:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶11} “I. AS AMENDED BY THE REAGAN TOKES ACT, THE REVISED CODE‘S SENTENCES FOR FIRST AND SECOND DEGREE QUALIFYING FELONIES VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF OHIO.
I.
{¶13} Appellant challenges the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Act, specifically
{¶14} For the reasons set forth in this Court‘s recent Opinions in State v. Burris, Guernsey App. No. 21CA000021, 2022-Ohio-1481 and State v. Ratliff, Guernsey App. No. 21CA00016, 2022-Ohio-1372, we find the Reagan Tokes Act constitutional and overrule Appellant‘s assignment of error.
II.
{¶15} Appellant next argues his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the constitutionality of
{¶16} To prevail on a claim of ineffectivе assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate: (1) deficient performance by counsel, i.e., that counsel‘s performance fell below an оbjective standard of reasonable representation, and (2) that counsеl‘s errors prejudiced the defendant, i.e., a reasonable probability that but for counsel‘s errors, the result of the trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. “Reasonable
{¶17} Because we have found
{¶18} Appellant‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶19} Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Baldwin, P. J., and
Gwin, J., concur.