STATE OF OHIO v. DERAUN DIXON
APPEAL NO. C-210502
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
October 14, 2022
[Cite as State v. Dixon, 2022-Ohio-3654.]
TRIAL NO. B-2101203
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 14, 2022
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Derek W. Gustafuson, for Defendant-Appellant.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Deraun Dixon appeals his sentences, arguing that the indefinite-sentencing scheme under
I. Facts and Procedure
{¶2} Dixon pled guilty to one count of felonious assault in violation of
II. Law and Analysis
This Court Has Determined that the Reagan Tokes Law is Facially Constitutional
{¶3} The failure to raise a constitutional issue at the trial level acts as a waiver of such issue and a deviation from Ohio‘s orderly procedure, and therefore it need not be heard for the first time on appeal. In re D.L., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-170152, C-170153 and C-170154, 2018-Ohio-2161. But an appellate court may, in its discretion, review a statute‘s constitutionality for plain error. Id.; see State v. Pleatman, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160234, 2016-Ohio-7659, ¶ 19.
{¶4} A “plain error” is both obvious and prejudicial, and, if permitted, would have a materially adverse effect on the character and public confidence in judicial proceedings. Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209, 436 N.E.2d 1001 (1982).
{¶5} Dixon did not specify whether he was raising a facial or an as-applied
{¶6} This court determined that the Reagan Tokes Law was facially constitutional and not violative of the separation-of-powers doctrine or an inmate‘s procedural-due-process rights in Guyton. This court has further held that the law does not violate an inmate‘s right to a jury trial. See State v. Smith, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210449, 2022-Ohio-3629, ¶ 10-13. Accordingly, we overrule Dixon‘s first assignment of error.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
{¶7} Dixon‘s second assignment of error asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law. Based on our holding that the Reagan Tokes Law is facially constitutional, any alleged error by counsel was not prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Dixon‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶8} The Reagan Tokes Law is facially constitutional and Dixon received the effective assistance of counsel. Therefore, we affirm the trial court‘s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
MYERS, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.