STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JARRIEL SEARIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NO. C-230060
TRIAL NO. B-2102119
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
October 4, 2023
[Cite as State v. Searight, 2023-Ohio-3584.]
BERGERON, Judge.
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded
Angela J. Glaser, for Defendant-Appellant.
{¶1} Following pleas of no contest to felony charges of fentanyl trafficking and possession, the trial court sentenced defendant-appеllant Jarriel Searight to an aggregate sentence of 3 to 4 1/2 years in prison under Ohio‘s Reagan Tokes Law (“RTL“). Mr. Searight now appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court failed to provide the proper RTL notifications at his sentencing hearing. The state concedes this point, and we agree. Mr. Searight also challenges the RTL‘s constitutionality, but, in this respect, he еssentially recycles arguments already rejected by this court and the Supreme Court of Ohio while failing to develop a unique argument under the Ohio Constitution. Therefore, we uphold the substance of his pleas and sentence, but we remand solely for proper sentencing notifications under
I.
{¶2} In Aрril 2021, Cincinnati police officers pulled Mr. Searight over for an open traffic capias. After smelling marijuana and observing “shake,” a small amount of marijuana ash and dust, on the back sеat of his car, the officers removed Mr. Searight and searched the vehicle. They located white powders, later identified as fentanyl and fluorofentantyl, and several scales. Prosecutors indicted him on two counts of fentanyl trafficking and two counts of fentanyl possession, all second-degree felonies.
{¶3} At a change of plea hearing in October 2022, Mr. Searight еntered no contest pleas to all four charges. Because each charge represented a second-degree felony not eligible for a life sentence, the RTL‘s indеfinite sentencing scheme applied. Prior to accepting his pleas, the trial court informed Mr. Searight that it could sentence
{¶4} Three months later, the trial court sentenced Mr. Searight to two prison terms of 3 to 4 1/2 years each, run concurrently, after merging the possession counts into the trafficking counts. At the January 2023 sentencing hearing, the trial court explained that the RTL applied but skimmed over the details. The court explained, “Mr. Searight, your sentence is three yеars but you‘re subject to an additional one-and-a-half, not at my discretion but at the discretion of your institution or the Department of Corrections,” and wrapped up the hearing.
{¶5} Mr. Searight now claims error in the trial court‘s failure to apprise him of the RTL sentencing hearing notifications required under
II.
{¶6} Mr. Searight‘s first assignment of error strikes at the sentencing court‘s abbreviated summary of the RTL‘s sentencing framework. He maintains, and the state concedes, that the trial court failed to apprise him of the RTL sentencing hearing notifications required under
{¶7} The statute‘s command regarding the RTL notifications is clear: “if the sentencing court determines at the sentencing hearing that a prison term is necessary or required, the court shall do all of the following: * * * [i]f the prison term is a non-life felony indefinite prison term, notify the offender of all of the [
{¶8} Here, like in Greene, the plea entry‘s description of the RTL does not suffice. Id. Similarly, the trial court‘s discussion of the RTL‘s sentencing system аt the October 2022 plea hearing does not satisfy the statutory requirement that the trial court deliver the notifications “at the sentencing hearing.”
{¶9} We sustain Mr. Searight‘s first assignment of error only insofar as it challenges the trial court‘s failure to notify Mr. Searight of the RTL provisions required under
III.
{¶10} Mr. Searight next challenges the constitutionality оf the RTL, assigning error on issues of due process (second assignment), trial by jury (third), and separation of powers (fourth). For each assignment, he raises arguments under, or at least references, bоth the federal and state constitutions. Ultimately, however, his
{¶11} Mr. Searight first maintains that
{¶12} Here, by citing to Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution instead of Section 16‘s Due Course of Law Clause, Mr. Searight perhaps hints at a different approach. Section 10 covers Ohio criminal defendants’ right to confront witnesses, to a speedy and public trial, and to the privilege against self-incrimination, among other
{¶13} Mr. Searight next faults the RTL as a violation of the right to trial by jury under the federal Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article I, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution. Not so, under Hacker and this court‘s precedent. Although the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected a jury trial right argument against the RTL without distinguishing between the federal Sixth Amendment‘s and the Ohio Constitution‘s jury trial right, this court disposed of an аrgument citing both provisions. See Hacker at ¶ 28; State v. Smith, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210449, 2022-Ohio-3629, ¶ 8, 13. Finally, the Ohio Supreme Court turned down separation of powers arguments akin to those raised by Mr. Searight under both the U.S. Constitution and the Ohio Constitution. Hacker at ¶ 25. Without a federаl or state constitutional leg to stand on, Mr. Searight‘s due process, jury trial, and separation of powers arguments against the RTL collapse. We therefore overrule his second, third, and fourth assignments of error.
*
*
*
{¶14} Ultimately, we reverse the trial court‘s judgment in part and remand this cause for the limited purpose of informing Mr. Searight of the Reagan Tokes Law sentencing notificatiоns required under
ZAYAS, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
BERGERON
JUDGE