State v. Eaton

• Citation: 192 N.E.3d 1236
• Decision Date: 15 July 2022
• Docket Number: L-21-1121
• Parties: STATE of Ohio, Appellee v. Adrian EATON, Appellant
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)

192 N.E.3d 1236

STATE of Ohio, Appellee

v.Adrian EATON, Appellant

No. L-21-1121

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County.

Decided: July 15, 2022

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Evy Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Autumn Adams, for appellant.

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

ZMUDA, J.

I. Introduction

{¶ 1} Appellant, Adrian Eaton, appeals the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to an indefinite term of 13 to 18 years in prison after he pled guilty to one count each of involuntary manslaughter, robbery, and aggravated burglary. Finding no error in the proceedings below for the following reasons, we affirm.

A. Facts and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} On July 11, 2019, appellant was indicted on one count of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B), an unspecified felony, one count of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B) and 2929.02, an unspecified felony, one count of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and (C), a felony of the first degree, and one count of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(2) and (B), a felony of the first degree. Each of the foregoing counts included a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145. These charges stemmed from a shooting that took place at an apartment located at 1324 Ironwood Avenue, Toledo, on July 6, 2019. Tragically, one of the residents of the apartment, Tyler Carr, was killed during the shooting. Three other individuals associated with appellant, Dominique Roberts, Justin Wright, and Darion Martin, were also at the scene of the murder and indicted on the same charges.

{¶ 3} Appellant initially entered a plea of not guilty to the foregoing charges, and the matter proceeded through pretrial discovery and motion practice. Eventually, on March 26, 2021, appellant appeared before the trial court for a change of plea hearing. At the hearing, the parties informed the trial court that they had reached a plea agreement. The state articulated the agreement, under which appellant agreed to enter a guilty plea to one count of the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter in violation of R.C. 2903.04(A) and (C), a felony of the first degree, along with an attendant firearm specification, one count of the lesser-included offense of robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(1) and (B), a felony of the second degree, and one count of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(2) and (B), a felony of the first degree. In exchange for these pleas, the state agreed to dismiss the charge of aggravated murder and the firearm specifications attached to the charges of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary, and recommend a concurrent sentence.

{¶ 4} Following the state's articulation of the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court engaged appellant in a thorough Crim.R. 11 colloquy. Thereafter, the court determined that appellant entered his plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, accepted the plea, and proceeded immediately to sentencing upon the request of appellant's defense counsel.

{¶ 5} Ultimately, the trial court adopted the state's sentencing recommendation and ordered appellant to serve 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter, 6 years for robbery, and 6 years for aggravated burglary. The court ordered these sentences served concurrent to one another, but consecutive to the mandatory three-year sentence associated with the firearm specification, for an aggregate indefinite sentence of 13 to 18 years in prison. The court informed appellant of the statutory procedure pertaining to his release from confinement at the expiration of his minimum term and the circumstances under which that release could be delayed. At this point, appellant's defense counsel objected, stating: "To the extent that the ODRC can keep Mr. Eaton in prison longer than the state minimum term without any court intervention, we would object to that on a constitutional – unconstitutional basis." The trial court summarily overruled the objection and finished its sentencing of appellant.

{¶ 6} On March 29, 2021, the trial court released its sentencing entry. Three months later, on June 17, 2021, appellant filed a pro se motion to file a delayed appeal. We granted appellant's motion on August 17, 2021, after which appellant was appointed counsel and the matter proceeded through briefing. The matter was submitted to this court on the briefs on March 15, 2022, and it is now decisional.

B. Assignments of Error

{¶ 7} On appeal, appellant raises the following assignment of error for our review:

The sentencing provisions of Senate Bill 201, otherwise known as the Reagan Tokes Act, are unconstitutional.

II. Analysis

{¶ 8} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues, as he did at sentencing, that the sentencing scheme established under S.B. 201, identified under R.C. 2901.011 as the Reagan Tokes Law, is unconstitutional because it violates the separation-of-powers doctrine and infringes upon his due process rights.

{¶ 9} At the outset, we note that this court, via a panel of visiting judges sitting by assignment by the Ohio Supreme Court, has already found the Reagan Tokes Law constitutional.

State v. Maddox , 6th Dist., 2022-Ohio-1350, 188 N.E.3d 682. We issued our decision as to the merits of the defendant's constitutional argument in Maddox after the case was remanded by the Ohio Supreme Court upon its determination that a facial challenge to the Reagan Tokes Law is ripe for review. See State v. Maddox , 2022-Ohio-764, ––– N.E.3d ––––. While we could simply rely upon our prior determination as to the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law and reject appellant's argument on that basis, we will thoroughly address appellant's argument based on a recognition of the brevity of the analysis set forth in Maddox and its mere adoption of the dissenting opinion in State v. Wolfe , 5th Dist. Licking No. 2020CA00021, 2020-Ohio-5501, 2020 WL 7054428.¹

{¶ 10} Additionally, we note that the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law has been addressed by other appellate courts in this state. In every instance, courts have deemed the sentencing scheme embodied in the Reagan Tokes Law constitutional. Indeed, in State v. Ratliff , 5th Dist., 2022-Ohio-1372, 190 N.E.3d 684, the Fifth District found the Reagan Tokes Law constitutional and noted:

The Second District Court of Appeals found the law constitutional in State v. Barnes , 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 28613, 2020-Ohio-4150 , State v. Leet , 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 28670, 2020-Ohio-4592 , and State v. Ferguson , 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153 . The Third District found the law constitutional in State v. Hacker , 3rd Dist. Logan, 2020-Ohio-5048 . The Twelfth District Court of Appeals also determined the law was constitutional in State v. Guyton , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-12-203, 2020-Ohio-3837 , and State v. Morris , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-12-205, 2020-Ohio-4103 . Moreover, in State v. Delvallie , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga, 2022-Ohio-470 , the court, sitting en banc, held that the Reagan Tokes Law is constitutional in that it does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine and does not violate either a defendant's right to a jury trial or due process of law.

Id. at ¶ 64.²

{¶ 11} Cognizant of the fact that the foregoing decisions have all concluded that the Reagan Tokes Law is constitutional, we now turn to our analysis of the Reagan Tokes Law. We will begin with a brief explanation of the Reagan Tokes Law and a summary of the arguments advanced by appellant and the state in this case. We will then examine the standard of proof applicable to facial constitutional challenges like that raised by appellant. Thereafter, we will examine whether the Reagan Tokes Law violates the separation-of-powers doctrine. Finally, we will consider whether the Reagan Tokes Law runs afoul of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and its counterpart in the Ohio Constitution.

A. The Reagan Tokes Law and Summary of the Arguments

1. Brief Overview of the Reagan Tokes Law

{¶ 12} In 2018, the Ohio General Assembly passed S.B. 201, which modified Ohio's "truth-in-sentencing" scheme that had been in place since July 1996 by adopting an indefinite sentencing scheme for certain serious felonies committed in Ohio. This bill, commonly referred to as the Reagan Tokes Law, went into effect on March 22, 2019. It amended over 50 existing sections of the Ohio Revised Code and enacted four new sections, including R.C. 2901.011, 2929.144, 2967.271, and 5120.038. Delvallie , 2022-Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist.), citing R.C. 2901.011. In general terms, the Eighth District recently described the Reagan Tokes Law as "an effort to return Ohio to its core sentencing approach, implementing the reformative incentive for offenders that was lost to the definite sentencing structure." Id. at ¶ 12.

{¶ 13} Of the many changes to Ohio's criminal sentencing scheme that were brought about by the Reagan Tokes Law, the change that is most pertinent to our present discussion centers around R.C. 2967.271(B) - (F), which permits prison authorities within the executive branch to hold defendants in confinement during the indefinite portion of their sentence for conduct that violates prison rules and regulations. The subsections at issue in R.C. 2967.271 may be summarized as follows:

- R.C. 2967.271(B) – release of an offender serving a non-life indefinite prison term is presumed to occur at the expiration of his minimum prison term or earned early release date, whichever is earlier

- R.C. 2967.271(C) – Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") may rebut the presumption for release if it holds a hearing and determines any of the following applies:

1. The defendant acted in a manner demonstrating he has not been rehabilitated and remains a threat to society, namely by committing a violation of law that was not prosecuted or violating prison rules

...