State v. Delvallie
Citation | 173 N.E.3d 544 |
Decision Date | 27 May 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 109315,109315 |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bradley DELVALLIE, Defendant-Appellant. |
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, Catherine Coleman and Daniel Van, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, Paul A. Kuzmins, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} On November 26, 2019, defendant-appellant Bradley Delvallie ("Delvallie") pleaded guilty and was sentenced on one count of aggravated robbery, R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), a first-degree felony. Delvallie's sole challenge on appeal is to the constitutionality of his sentence imposed pursuant to S.B. 201 known as the Reagan Tokes Law. Delvallie assigns as error:
As amended by the Reagan Tokes Law, the Ohio Revised Code's sentences for first-and-second-degree qualifying felonies violate the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Ohio.
II. Reagan Tokes Law
{¶ 2} This court explained the sentencing impact of the law in State v. Dames , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109090, 2020-Ohio-4991, 2020 WL 6193967 :
III. Standard of Review
{¶ 4} It has been established that:
There are two primary ways to challenge the constitutionality of a statute: by facial challenge or through an "as-applied" challenge. Harrold v. Collier , 107 Ohio St.3d 44, 2005-Ohio-5334, 836 N.E.2d 1165, ¶ 37. In a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute, the claimant must show that there are no set of facts under which the challenged statute is constitutional. An as-applied challenge alleges that a particular application of a statute is unconstitutional. "Facial challenges present a higher hurdle than as-applied challenges because, in general, for a statute to be facially unconstitutional, it must be unconstitutional in all applications." State v. Romage , 138 Ohio St.3d 390, 2014-Ohio-783, 7 N.E.3d 1156, ¶ 7, citing Oliver v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co. Ltd. Partnership , 123 Ohio St.3d 278, 2009-Ohio-5030, 915 N.E.2d 1205, ¶ 13.
Derrico v. State , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107192, 2019-Ohio-1767, 2019 WL 2060360, ¶ 17.
{¶ 5} "The interpretation of the constitutionality of a statute presents a question of law." In re Special Docket No. 73958 , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 87777 and 87816, 2008-Ohio-4444, 2008 WL 4068212, ¶ 11, citing Andreyko v. Cincinnati , 153 Ohio App.3d 108, 2003-Ohio-2759, 791 N.E.2d 1025 (1st Dist.). " ‘Questions of law are reviewed de novo, independently and without deference to the trial court's decision.’ " In re Special Docket at id. , quoting Andreyko at 112, 2003 -Ohio- 2759, 791 N.E.2d 1025.
In re Special Docket at ¶ 12, quoting State ex rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher , 164 Ohio St. 142, 128 N.E.2d 59 (1955), paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶ 7} "Moreover, the presumption of validity cannot be overcome unless it appears that there is a clear conflict between the legislation in question and some particular provision or provisions of the Constitution." In re Special Docket at ¶ 13, citing Xenia v. Schmidt , 101 Ohio St. 437, 130 N.E. 24 (1920), paragraph two of the syllabus.
IV. Discussion
{¶ 8} Delvallie was sentenced as follows:
Nov. 26, 2019 Sentencing Journal Entry. Postrelease control was also imposed with related advisements.
{¶ 9} Delvallie posed objections to the constitutionality of Reagan Tokes Law at the sentencing. Delvallie argues that the law directly impinges multiple state and federal constitutional protections by: (1) delegating to the executive branch the fact-finding necessary to impose a sentence beyond the statutory presumption in violation of the right to trial by jury; and (2) failing to ensure adequate due process prior to imposition of an enhanced sentence.
{¶ 10} Specifically, Delvallie asserts that the following constitutional rights are infringed, ignored, or diluted:
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Delvallie
-
State v. Delvallie
...that argument since it lies at the heart of the conflict between Gamble, 2021-Ohio-1810, 173 N.E.3d 132, at ¶ 41, and Delvallie, 2021-Ohio-1809, 173 N.E.3d 544, at ¶ {¶ 40} The trial court, under R.C. 2929.144 and 2929.14, is statutorily required to impose the minimum and maximum terms upon......
-
State v. Chapman
...an offender's constitutional rights to trial by jury. Id. ; contra State v. Delvallie , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2021-Ohio-1809 [173 N.E.3d 544] [, opinion vacated on reh'g en banc, 8th Dist. No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 536, appeal allowed, 166 Ohio St.3d 1496, 2022-Ohio-148......
-
State v. Abdullah
......2967.271(C) is void for vagueness and does not provide him with a sufficient understanding of what conduct could result in the indeterminate portion of his sentence being invoked, citing in support of his argument State v. Delvallie , 2021-Ohio-1809, 173 N.E.3d 544 (8th Dist.), which was vacated by the Eighth District sitting en banc in State v. Delvallie , 2022-Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist.) (upholding the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law). {¶58} " ‘[A] law will survive a void-for-vagueness challenge if ......