State v. Maddox , 2022 Ohio 1350 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Maddox, 
    2022-Ohio-1350
    .]
    COURT OF APPEALS
    LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO
    SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    STATE OF OHIO                                 JUDGES:
    Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
    Plaintiff-Appellee                    Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
    Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
    -vs-
    Sitting by Assignment by the Ohio
    Supreme Court
    EDWARD MADDOX
    Case No. L-19-1253
    Defendant-Appellant
    OPINION
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:
    Appeal from the Lucas County Court of
    Common Pleas, Case No. CR19-2094
    JUDGMENT:
    Affirmed
    DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:
    April 22, 2022
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff-Appellee                        For Defendant-Appellant
    JULIA R. BATES                                ANDREW R. MAYLE
    Prosecuting Attorney                          Mayle, LLC
    Lucas County, Ohio                            P.O. Box 263
    Perrysburg, Ohio 43552
    ALYSSA BREYMAN
    Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
    Lucas County Courthouse
    711 Adams Street
    Toledo, Ohio 43604
    Lucas County, Case No. L-19-1253                                                                2
    Hoffman, P.J.
    {¶1}     This case comes before this Court from the judgment entered by the Ohio
    Supreme Court on March 16, 2022, remanding this case for this Court to consider whether
    the challenged provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law are constitutional. Defendant-
    appellant is Edward Maddox. Appellee is the state of Ohio.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
    {¶2}     On September 30, 2019, Appellant entered pleas of guilty pursuant to North
    Carolina v. Alford to two counts of attempted burglary, in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and
    R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) and (D), felonies of the third degree; and one count of burglary, in
    violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) and (D), a felony of the second degree. Appellant was
    convicted upon his pleas, and the case proceeded directly to sentencing.
    {¶3}     Appellant was sentenced pursuant to Am.Sub.S.B. No. 201, otherwise
    known as the Reagan Tokes Act. On each of the convictions of attempted burglary, the
    trial court sentenced Appellant to twelve months incarceration. On the burglary conviction,
    the court sentenced Appellant to a stated minimum term of incarceration of four years
    and a maximum indefinite term of incarceration of six years. The trial court ordered the
    sentences to be served concurrently.
    {¶4}     Appellant appealed the judgment of conviction and sentence, assigning as
    error:
    1   A rendition of the facts is unnecessary to our resolution of the issues raised on appeal.
    Lucas County, Case No. L-19-1253                                                              3
    I. IT WAS PLAIN ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO IMPOSE
    SENTENCE UNDER THE REAGAN TOKES LAW BECAUSE ITS
    PROVISIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL NULLITIES.
    II. TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN
    NOT OBJECTING TO APPLICATION OF THE TOKES LAW.
    {¶5}   This Court found the issue of the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law
    to be not yet ripe for review. State v. Maddox, 6th Dist. Lucas No. CL-19-1253, 2020-
    Ohio-4702. This case came before the Ohio Supreme Court on a certified conflict. The
    Ohio Supreme Court reversed this Court’s decision finding the issue of constitutionality
    not ripe for review, and remanded to this Court with instructions to issue a ruling on the
    constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law. State v. Maddox, 
    2022-Ohio-764
    .
    I.
    {¶6}   In his first assignment of error, Appellant challenges the presumptive
    release feature of R.C. 2967.271, arguing it violates his constitutional rights to trial by jury
    and due process of law, and further violates the constitutional requirement of separation
    of powers.
    {¶7}   For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of The Honorable W. Scott
    Gwin in State v. Wolfe, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2020CA00021, 
    2020-Ohio-5501
    , we find the
    Reagan Tokes Law does not violate Appellant’s constitutional rights to trial by jury and
    due process of law, and does not violate the constitutional requirement of separation of
    powers. We hereby adopt the dissenting opinion in Wolfe as the opinion of this Court. In
    so holding, we also note the sentencing law has been found constitutional by the Second,
    Lucas County, Case No. L-19-1253                                                             4
    Third, and Twelfth Districts, and also by the Eighth District sitting en banc. See, e.g.,
    State v. Ferguson, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 28644, 
    2020-Ohio-4153
    ; State v. Hacker,
    3rd Dist. Logan No. 8-20-01, 2020-Ohio-5048l; State v. Guyton, 12th Dist. Butler No.
    CA2019-12-203, 
    2020-Ohio-3837
    ; State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315,
    
    2022-Ohio-470
    .
    {¶8}   The first assignment of error is overruled.
    II.
    {¶9}   In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues his trial counsel was
    ineffective by failing to raise the constitutionality of R.C. 2967.271 in the trial court.
    {¶10} A properly licensed attorney is presumed competent. State v. Hamblin, 
    37 Ohio St.3d 153
    , 
    524 N.E.2d 476
     (1988). Therefore, in order to prevail on a claim of
    ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must show counsel's performance fell below
    an objective standard of reasonable representation and but for counsel’s error, the result
    of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    ,
    
    104 S.Ct. 2052
    , 
    80 L.Ed.2d 674
    (1984); State v. Bradley , 
    42 Ohio St.3d 136
    , 
    538 N.E.2d 373
     (1989). In other words, Appellant must show counsel’s conduct so undermined the
    proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having
    produced a just result. 
    Id.
    {¶11} Because we have found R.C. 2967.271 to be constitutional, Appellant has
    not demonstrated prejudice from counsel’s failure to raise the claim in the trial court.
    Lucas County, Case No. L-19-1253                                                   5
    {¶12} The second assignment of error is overruled.
    {¶13} The judgment of the Lucas County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
    By: Hoffman, P.J.
    Delaney, J. and
    Wise, Earle, J. concur
    Sitting by Assignment by the Supreme Court of Ohio
    HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
    HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
    HON. EARLE E. WISE, JR.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO
    SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    STATE OF OHIO                             :
    :
    Plaintiff-Appellee                 :
    :
    -vs-                                      :          JUDGMENT ENTRY
    :
    EDWARD MADDOX                             :
    :
    Defendant-Appellant                :          Case No. L-19-1253
    For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the Lucas
    County Court of Common Pleas, is affirmed. Costs assessed to Appellant.
    Sitting by Assignment by the Supreme Court of Ohio
    HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
    HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
    HON. EARLE E. WISE, JR.