State v. DayState v. Day
F. Stephen Chamberlain for Appellant
Jana E. Emerick for Appellee
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Daren K. Day, appeals the April 21, 2022 judgment of sentence of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On January 13, 2022, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Day on three counts: Counts One and Two of grand theft of a motor vehicle in violation of
{¶3} Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, on March 3, 2022, Day entered guilty pleas to all counts in the indictment. In exchange, the State agreed to recommend dismissal of the RVO specification associated with Count Three. The trial court accepted Day‘s guilty plea and found him guilty of Counts One, Two, and Three. The following day, the trial court filed its judgment entry of conviction.
{¶4} At a sentencing hearing held on April 21, 2022, the trial court determined Counts Two and Three merged for sentencing. The State elected for Day to be sentenced on Count Three. The defense objected to the imposition of an indefinite prison sentence for Count Three under the Reagan Tokes Law on the
{¶5} On May 19, 2022, Day filed his notice of appeal. He raises three assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error No. I
The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is unconstitutional because it violates the separation-of-powers doctrine.
Assignment of Error No. II
The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is unconstitutional because it violates right to due process.
Assignment of Error No. III
The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional right to a jury trial.
{¶6} In the three assignments of error, which we will address together, Day contends that the indefinite sentence of incarceration imposed on Count Three pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional as it violates the separation-of-powers doctrine and violates his constitutional rights to due process and to a trial by jury.
{¶8} Thus, on the basis of Ball and our prior precedent, this Court finds no merit to Day‘s contentions. The three assignments of error are overruled.
{¶9} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment Affirmed
ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and SHAW, J., concur.
/jlr