State v. MitchellState v. Mitchell
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Adrienne E. Linnick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Daniel J. Misiewicz, for appellant.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:
{1} Defendant-appellant Chase Mitchell (“Mitchell“), raising a single assignment of error, appeals from his sentence following a guilty plea, arguing that
Factual and Procedural History
{2} This appeal stems from three separate criminal cases. On October 15, 2020, in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-20-653348, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Mitchell on one count of receiving stolen property in violation of
{3} On November 18, 2020, in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-20-654549, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Mitchell on one count of aggravated robbery in violation of
{4} On March 19, 2021, in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-21-658101, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Mitchell on one count of robbery in violation of
{5} Mitchell initially pleaded not guilty to the charges in all three cases. On April 7, 2021, in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-21-658101, Mitchell was referred to the court psychiatric clinic for the purpose of determining his eligibility for transfer to the mental health docket. Having been found eligible for transfer, on May 5, 2021, all three cases were transferred to the mental health docket.
{6} On June 30, 2021, the court held a change-of-plea hearing. Mitchell agreed to plead guilty to the indictment in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-20-653348, one count of receiving stolen property. Mitchell also agreed to plead guilty to one count of robbery in violation of
{7} The court explained the maximum potential penalties Mitchell faced, including the application of Reagan Tokes to his offenses. After engaging Mitchell in a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, the court accepted his guilty pleas. The court then proceeded directly to sentencing. The court heard from the assistant county prosecutor, who read statements from two victims; defense counsel, who emphasized Mitchell‘s mental health diagnoses and extremely low intellectual functioning; and Mitchell, who apologized to the victims and the court. The court stated that it had reviewed Mitchell‘s mitigation of penalty report, his criminal history, and his institutional record. Ultimately, the court sentenced Mitchell to 18
{8} Mitchell now appeals, presenting one assignment of error for our review.
Legal Analysis
{9} In his sole assignment of error, Mitchell argues that because the Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional, the trial court erred in imposing an indefinite sentence pursuant to the law. We disagree.
{10} Specifically, Mitchell argues that the Reagan Tokes Law violates his constitutional right to a trial by jury, his due process rights, and the separation-of-powers doctrine. Mitchell‘s arguments are overruled pursuant to this court‘s en banc decision in State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470, which overruled the challenges presented in this appeal to the Reagan Tokes Law enacted through S.B. 201. Therefore, we find that Mitchell‘s sentence pursuant to Reagan Tokes was not a violation of his constitutional rights. Mitchell‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{11} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and
CORNELIUS J. O‘SULLIVAN, JR., J., CONCUR
N.B. Judge Mary Eileen Kilbane joined the dissenting opinion by Judge Lisa B. Forbes and the concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion by Judge Anita Laster Mays in Delvallie and would have found the Reagan Tokes Law unconstitutional.