Reagan Tokes Law constitutionality. The trial court erred in finding the Reagan Tokes Law unconstitutional and imposing a definite sentence contrary to the law's provisions.
.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 111510
v. :
LINELL LOVELACE, III, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 15, 2022
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-19-637646-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Daniel T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellant.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
John T. Martin, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:
Plaintiff-appellant, the state of Ohio, appeals from a judgment of the
trial court that found S.B. 201, the Reagan Tokes Law, unconstitutional and did not
sentence defendant-appellee Linell Lovelace, III, to an indefinite sentence as
required by the law. This court has determined the Regan Tokes Law to be
constitutional in State v. Delvallie,
(8th Dist.) (en
banc). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the matter for
resentencing.
Lovelace pleaded guilty to endangering children, a felony of the
second degree; three counts of domestic violence, a misdemeanor of the first degree,
and criminal damaging or endangering, a misdemeanor of the second degree.
Pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law, the trial court was required to impose an
indefinite sentence for Lovelace’s second-degree felony offense of endangering
children. However, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that, despite this
court’s decision in Delvallie,
, it found S.B. 201 to
be unconstitutional and, over the state’s objection, imposed a definite term of two
years for that offense. In its sentencing journal entry, the court stated, “Court
determines the indefinite minimum provisions of SB 201 to be unconstitutional.”
On appeal, the state contends that “[t]he trial court plainly erred
when it found S.B. 201 to be unconstitutional and did not impose an indefinite
sentence pursuant to S.B. 201.”
Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(B)(2), the state has the right to appeal a
sentence that is contrary to law. A sentence that fails to impose a mandatory
provision is contrary to law. State v. Underwood,
, this court, in an en
banc decision, found the Reagan Tokes Law constitutional and overruled the same
arguments raised by Lovelace in this appeal. In his appellee brief, Lovelace
essentially asks us to reconsider Delvallie. We are bound by our precedent, however.
Because the trial court failed to impose an indefinite sentence on Lovelace’s
endangering children offense in accordance with the Regan Tokes Law, the sentence
was contrary to law. The state’s sole assignment of error is sustained. The trial
court’s judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded for resentencing in
accordance with the provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law.
It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee 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.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
_________________________
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J., and
CORNELIUS J. O’SULLIVAN, JR., J., CONCUR
N.B. Judge Anita Laster Mays joined the dissent in Delvallie and would have found
that R.C. 2967.271(C) and (D) of the Reagan Tokes Law are unconstitutional. For a
full explanation of her analysis, see Delvallie (Laster Mays, J., concurring in part and
dissenting in part).
