State v. Hartline , 2022 Ohio 2997 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Hartline, 2022-Ohio-2997.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
LOGAN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-21-13
v.
BRITTANY M. HARTLINE, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-21-14
v.
BRITTANY M. HARTLINE, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeals from Logan County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court Nos. CR 15 10 0260 and CR 20 09 0206
Judgments Affirmed
Date of Decision: August 29, 2022
APPEARANCES:
William T. Cramer for Appellant
Sarah J. Warren for Appellee
Case No. 8-21-13, 8-21-14
ZIMMERMAN, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Brittany M. Hartline (“Hartline”), appeals the
April 7, 2021 judgment entries of sentencing of the Logan County Court of
Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On October 13, 2015, the Logan County Grand Jury indicted Hartline
in case number CR 15 10 0260 (hereinafter “2015 case”) on two criminal charges:
Count One for robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), a second-degree felony
and Count Two for assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), a first-degree
misdemeanor. On February 22, 2016, Hartline withdrew her previously tendered
not-guilty plea and entered a guilty plea to Count One in exchange for the State’s
dismissal of Count Two under a negotiated-plea agreement. Additionally, the State
agreed to recommend a four-year prison term and not to oppose judicial release
(after one year) to West Central Community Correctional Facility, a community-
based correctional facility, (“CBCF”). On May 9, 2016, the trial court adopted the
parties’ joint-sentencing recommendation in its entirety and imposed a four-year
prison term consistent with that recommendation.
{¶3} On June 28, 2017, the trial court suspended the remainder of Hartline’s
sentence and granted her request for judicial release. Then, the trial court placed
Hartline on five years of community control subject to specific sanctions and
-2-
Case No. 8-21-13, 8-21-14
conditions that included the successful completion of a 6-month residential program
at a CBCF.
{¶4} On November 29, 2017, the State filed a motion in the trial court
seeking to revoke Hartline’s community control.1 Ultimately, at the revocation
hearing held on December 15, 2017, Hartline admitted she violated the terms and
conditions of community control. Thereafter, the trial court ordered the
continuation of her suspended sentence and ordered specific sanctions and
community control conditions including a recommitment to CBCF. Hartline was
released from her commitment, successfully, in July 2018, and continued on
community control under the judicial-release orders.
{¶5} On August 5, 2019, the State filed a second motion to revoke Hartline’s
community control. On November 5, 2019, Hartline waived her evidentiary
hearing, and admitted she violated the terms and conditions of community control.
The trial court continued its prior orders suspending Hartline’s sentence and ordered
her to serve 95 days in the Logan County Jail.
{¶6} On September 8, 2020, in case number CR 20 09 0206 (hereinafter
“2020 case”), the Logan County Grand Jury indicted Hartline for aggravated
possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(c), a second-degree
1
On November 20, 2017, Hartline was unsuccessfully terminated from the CBCF.
-3-
Case No. 8-21-13, 8-21-14
felony. Hartline was arraigned on September 11, 2020 and entered a plea of not
guilty.
{¶7} On September 17, 2020, the State filed a third motion to revoke
Hartline’s community control for violating conditions imposed by the trial court.
{¶8} On March 3, 2021, the trial court held a change-of-plea hearing (in
Hartline’s 2020 case) wherein she withdrew her not-guilty plea and entered a guilty
plea (to aggravated possession of drugs) pursuant to a negotiated-plea agreement.
The plea agreement included a joint-sentencing recommendation that Hartline
receive a four-year prison term (in her 2020 case) to be run concurrently to her 2015
case. (Case No. CR 20 09 0206, Doc. No. 49).
{¶9} Following the change-of-plea hearing, the trial court convened
Hartline’s revocation hearing (in her 2015 case) where she waived an evidentiary
hearing and entered an admission acknowledging the violations of community
control.2 The trial court then scheduled Hartline’s 2015 and 2020 cases for
sentencing on April 6, 2021.
{¶10} At her sentencing hearing, the trial court revoked Hartline’s
community control (in her 2015 case) and sentenced her to a four-year mandatory
stated prison term for the aggravated-robbery charge. (Case No. CR 15 10 0260,
Doc. No. 116). Then, the trial court sentenced Hartline (in her 2020 case) to serve
2
The trial court determined that these violations were non-technical violations.
-4-
Case No. 8-21-13, 8-21-14
a mandatory indefinite prison term with a four-year minimum prison term and a
maximum prison term of six years for the aggravated-possession-of-drugs charge.
(Case No. CR 20 09 0206, Doc. No. 60). The trial court ordered the prison terms
imposed in Hartline’s cases to be run concurrently to one another. (Id.). Both
judgment entries were filed on April 7, 2021.
{¶11} Hartline filed timely notices of appeal, which we consolidated for
review. Initially, Hartline’s appellate counsel filed his merit brief and a motion for
leave to file withdraw from representation pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967). However, after identifying an arguable issue, we
granted Hartline’s former appellate counsel leave to withdraw and permitted the
trial court to appoint new appellate counsel. Hartline sets forth a single assignment
of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
Indefinite prison terms imposed under the Reagan Tokes Law
violate the jury trial guarantee, the doctrine of separation of
powers, and due process principles under the federal and state
constitutions.
{¶12} In her assignment of error, Hartline asserts that her sentence is contrary
to law. Specifically, she argues that the trial court erred in sentencing her under the
Reagan Tokes Law because it violates her rights to a trial by jury and due process
of law as well as the separation-of-powers doctrine.
-5-
Case No. 8-21-13, 8-21-14
Standard of Review
{¶13} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence
“only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not
support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is
otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002,
¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that “‘which will produce in the mind of the
trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” Id.
at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the
syllabus.
Analysis
{¶14} Before we begin, we must address a jurisdictional question. Here, the
trial court adopted the parties’ joint-sentencing recommendation in its entirety and
without deviation. Typically, a joint sentencing recommendation that is adopted by
the trial court limits our jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a sentence. See R.C.
2953.08(D)(1); State v. Noling, 136 Ohio St.3 1636, 2013-Ohio-1764, ¶ 22
(recognizing an example of a statutory limitation on the court of appeals’
jurisdiction to hear an appeal); and State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279, 2019-
Ohio-4761, ¶ 9 and fn. 1 (stating “[o]nly the legislature may grant or divest the court
of appeals of that jurisdiction” and recognizing R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) and Noling).
-6-
Case No. 8-21-13, 8-21-14
{¶15} However, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that constitutional
challenges are not within the scope of R.C. 2953.08, and thus, R.C. 2953.08 is not
the only basis for appealing a sentence and it “does not preclude an appeal of a
sentence on constitutional grounds”. State v. Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d 309, 2020-
Ohio-6803, ¶ 1, citing R.C. 2953.08(D)(3). Hence, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), Noling, and
Gwynne are not controlling as to our determination of the issues presented.
{¶16} Because we have concluded that Hartline’s constitutional challenge to
her sentence is not barred by R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), we now turn to the record to
determine if Hartline raised her constitutional arguments in the trial court and the
appropriate standard of review.
{¶17} Notably, Hartline failed to object to the constitutionality of the Reagan
Tokes Law in the trial court. “The ‘[f]ailure to raise at the trial court level the issue
of the constitutionality of a statute or its application, which is apparent at the time
of trial, constitutes a waiver of such issue and a deviation from this state’s orderly
procedure, and therefore need not be heard for the first time on appeal.’” State v.
Barnhart, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-20-08, 2021-Ohio-2874, ¶ 7, quoting State v.
Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986), syllabus. “However, we retain the discretion to
consider a waived constitutional argument under a plain-error analysis.” Id. at ¶ 8.
“An error qualifies as ‘plain error’ only if it is obvious and but for the error, the
outcome of the proceeding clearly would have been otherwise.” Id. In this case,
-7-
Case No. 8-21-13, 8-21-14
we elect to exercise our discretion to review Hartline’s constitutional arguments for
plain error. See id. at ¶ 8, 15 (reviewing “waived” challenge to the constitutionality
of the Reagan Tokes Law for plain error).
{¶18} Here, Hartline’s challenges do not present a matter of first impression
to this court. Since the indefinite-sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law
went into effect in March 2019, we have repeatedly been asked to address the
constitutionality of these provisions. We have invariably concluded that the
indefinite-sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law do not facially violate
the separation of powers doctrine, infringe on defendants’ due process rights, or
violate the right to a trial by jury. E.g., State v. Crawford, 3d Dist. Henry No. 7-20-
05, 2021-Ohio-547, ¶ 10-11; State v. Hacker, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-20-01, 2020-
Ohio-5048, ¶ 22; State v. Wolfe, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-21-16, 2022-Ohio-96, ¶ 21.
{¶19} In this case, Hartline asks us to reconsider our earlier decisions. In
recent months, a number of defendants have requested the same of us—requests that
we have uniformly rejected. E.g., State v. Abston, 3d Dist. Henry No. 7-21-04,
2022-Ohio-884, ¶ 33; Wolfe at ¶ 22; Barnhart at ¶ 12-15; State v. Mitchell, 3d Dist.
Allen No. 1-21-02, 2021-Ohio-2802, ¶ 17; State v. Rodriguez, 3d Dist. Seneca No.
13-20-07, 2021-Ohio-2295, ¶ 15. As Hartline has not presented us with any
compelling reason to depart from our earlier precedent on facial challenges to the
indefinite-sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law, we decline to do so.
-8-
Case No. 8-21-13, 8-21-14
{¶20} Hartline also challenges the indefinite-sentencing provisions of the
Reagan Tokes Law as applied to her, contending that they violate her constitutional
right to due process and trial by jury. In the past, we have held that certain “as-
applied” challenges to these provisions were not ripe for review. See, e.g., State v.
Kepling, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-20-23, 2020-Ohio-6888, ¶ 11. However, the
Supreme Court of Ohio recently decided State v. Maddox, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,
2022-Ohio-764, and determined that constitutional challenges to the indefinite-
sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law are ripe for review. Based upon
the holding in Maddox, we will address Hartline’s argument that the indefinite-
sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law violate her right to a jury trial and
due process.
{¶21} In reviewing the matter, we emphasize that statutes are presumed
constitutional, and it is Hartline’s burden to demonstrate that the statute at issue is
unconstitutional. State v. Thompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 560, 1996-Ohio-264.
Hartline has presented no compelling authority undermining the constitutionality of
the indefinite-sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law.
{¶22} Notwithstanding this point, numerous Ohio courts of appeals have
already rejected challenges similar to Hartlines. State v. Suder, 12th Dist. Clermont
Nos. CA2020-06-034 and CA2020-06-035, 2021-Ohio-465, ¶ 25; State v. Rogers,
12th Dist. Butler No. CA2021-02-010, 2021-Ohio-3282, ¶ 18; State v. Thompson,
-9-
Case No. 8-21-13, 8-21-14
2d Dist. Clark No. 2020-CA-60, 2021-Ohio-4027, ¶ 25; State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470, ¶ 46 (en banc). We agree with the
reasoning expressed by these courts and determine that Hartline’s “as-applied”
challenges regarding the jury trial and due process issues are unavailing.
{¶23} In sum, we conclude that the indefiniteness of Hartline’s sentence does
not render her sentence contrary to law. Thus, Hartline’s sole assignment of error
is overruled.
{¶24} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Judgments Affirmed
SHAW and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-10-