State v. Potter ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Potter, 
    2023-Ohio-534
    .]
    COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
    STATE OF OHIO,                                    :
    Plaintiff-Appellant,             :
    No. 111782
    v.                               :
    JULIUS POTTER,                                    :
    Defendant-Appellee.              :
    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
    JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
    RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 23, 2023
    Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
    Case No. CR-22-667757-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
    Noelle A. Powell, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.
    FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J.:
    Plaintiff-appellant state of Ohio (“the state”) appeals from a judgment
    of the trial court that found S.B. 201, the Reagan Tokes Law, unconstitutional and
    did not sentence defendant-appellee Julius Potter accordingly. Pursuant to this
    court’s en banc decision in State v. Delvallie, 
    2022-Ohio-470
    , 
    185 N.E.3d 538
     (8th
    Dist.), finding the Reagan Tokes Law constitutional, we reverse the trial court’s
    judgment and remand the matter for resentencing.
    I. Factual and Procedural History
    Potter entered a guilty plea to felonious assault with firearm
    specifications, having weapons while under disability, and resisting arrest. Potter
    was sentenced to prison for a total term of five years. Pertinently, the trial court’s
    journal entry noted that the “court determines the indefinite provisions of SB201 to
    be unconstitutional.”
    The state timely appealed, assigning a single error for our review:
    The 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.
    II. Law and Analysis
    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, 
    124 Ohio St.3d 365
    , 2010-Ohio-
    1, 
    922 N.E.2d 923
    , ¶ 21.
    This court, in Delvallie, 
    2022-Ohio-470
    , 
    185 N.E.3d 538
    , held that the
    Reagan Tokes Law was constitutional and overruled all of the arguments raised by
    Potter in this appeal, as Potter concedes in his brief. Because the trial court failed to
    impose indefinite sentences on Potter’s two qualifying offenses in accordance with
    the Reagan Tokes Law, the sentence was contrary to law.
    The state’s sole assignment of error is sustained.
    III. Conclusion
    The trial court’s judgment was contrary to law because it failed to
    sentence Potter in accordance with the Reagan Tokes Law, which this court found
    constitutional in Delvallie. The trial court’s judgment is reversed, and the matter is
    remanded for resentencing in accordance with the Reagan Tokes Law.
    It is ordered that appellant recover from 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.
    FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, PRESIDING JUDGE
    MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., and
    MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 111782

Judges: Celebrezze

Filed Date: 2/23/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/23/2023