[Cite as State v. Walker,
2022-Ohio-1546.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2021-10-122
: OPINION
- vs - 5/9/2022
:
JALEN L. WALKER, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2021-01-0100
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael Greer, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Michele Temmel, for appellant.
BYRNE, J.
{¶1} Jalen Walker appeals his sentence in the Butler County Court of Common
Pleas. For the reasons described below, we affirm.
{¶2} In March 2021, a Butler County Grand Jury indicted Walker on five counts,
consisting of charges of possession of fentanyl, possession of methamphetamine,
falsification, illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving under suspension.
Butler CA2021-10-122
Walker subsequently agreed to withdraw his former not guilty plea and enter into a
negotiated plea agreement with the state. As part of the plea, Walker agreed to plead guilty
to possession of fentanyl (and its accompanying forfeiture specification). The state agreed
to dismiss the remaining counts.
{¶3} Walker appeared for a plea hearing. The court accepted Walker's plea, found
Walker guilty of the agreed count, and continued the matter for sentencing. At the
sentencing hearing, the court imposed an indefinite prison term of a minimum of five years
and a maximum of seven and one-half years in prison under R.C. 2967.271, i.e., the
Reagan Tokes Law. There is no dispute that Walker did not raise any challenge to the
constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law at the trial court level.
{¶4} Walker appealed, raising the following sole assignment of error:
{¶5} DEFENDANT'S INDEFINITE SENTENCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
{¶6} Walker challenges the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law, as set forth
in R.C. 2967.271, on the basis that it violates his due process rights under the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, as noted above, Walker never
raised this issue with the trial court. We have repeatedly held that arguments challenging
the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law are forfeited and will not be heard for the first
time on appeal in cases where the appellant did not first raise the issue with the trial court.
State v. Blaylock, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2020-11-113, 2021-Ohio-2631, ¶ 7; State v.
Hodgkin, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-08-048,
2021-Ohio-1353, ¶ 11; State v. Teasley,
12th Dist. Butler No. CA2020-01-001,
2020-Ohio-4626, ¶ 9; and State v. Alexander, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2019-12-204,
2020-Ohio-3838, ¶ 8.
{¶7} Moreover, even if Walker had not forfeited this argument, this court has
repeatedly rejected due process challenges to the constitutionality of Reagan Tokes Law.
State v. Henderson, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-11-072, 2021-Ohio-3564, ¶ 14; State
-2-
Butler CA2021-10-122
v. Jackson, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2020-07-077, 2021-Ohio-778, ¶ 15; State v. Suder, 12th
Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2020-06-034 and CA2020-06-035,
2021-Ohio-465, ¶ 27; and State
v. Guyton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-12-203,
2020-Ohio-3837, ¶ 17.
{¶8} Given our precedent declining to hear arguments challenging the
constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes law in cases where the issue was not first raised with
the trial court, we overrule Walker's sole assignment of error.
{¶9} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.
-3-
