State v. Hartfield , 2023 Ohio 1260 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Hartfield, 2023-Ohio-1260.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs- :
:
DOUGLAS R. HARTFIELD : Case No. 22 CA 00082
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 19-CR-470
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 18, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
KENNETH W. OSWALT WILLIAM T. CRAMER
20 South Second Street 470 Olde Worthington Road
Fourth Floor Suite 200
Newark, OH 43055 Westerville, OH 43082
Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00082 2
King, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Douglas Hartfield appeals the judgment of the Licking
County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of one count of rape and one count of
sexual battery and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of incarceration of six to nine
years. Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of Ohio.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} A recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary to our resolution of this
appeal.
{¶ 3} Hartfield was indicted on two counts of rape and one count of sexual battery.
Following a jury trial Hartfield was found guilty of one count of rape and one count of
sexual battery. The trial court proceeded directly to sentencing and imposed an
indeterminate prison term of six to nine years for rape, and a concurrent term of 36 months
for sexual battery.
{¶ 4} Hartfield timely appealed and argued in part that the rape and sexual battery
counts should have merged for sentencing and his indeterminate sentence imposed
pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act, is unconstitutional. State v. Hartfield, 5th Dist. Licking
No. 2021 CA 0030, 2022-Ohio-2243 ¶¶ 49-55, 57-59.
{¶ 5} Upon review, we concluded rape and sexual battery under the facts of this
case were allied offenses which should have been merged. We further found that the trial
court committed plain error in failing to merge the offenses for sentencing and remanded
the matter for resentencing. Id. ¶ 55. Hartfield also challenged the constitutionality of the
Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00082 3
Reagan Tokes Act on the same grounds he raises in this appeal. We denied Hartfield's
Reagan Tokes challenge, Id. ¶¶ 57-59.1
{¶ 6} On remand, the state elected to proceed to sentencing on Hartfield's rape
conviction and the trial court imposed the same indeterminate sentence of six to nine
years.
{¶ 7} Hartfield filed an appeal, and the matter is now before this court for review.
He raises one assignment of error as follows:
I
{¶ 8} "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."
{¶ 9} In his sole assignment of error, Hartfield again challenges the
constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Act. Hartfield advances the same arguments here
as he did in his first appeal: the act violates his constitutional rights to trial by jury, equal
protection and due process of law, and further violates the constitutional requirement of
separation of powers by permitting the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections
to potentially add additional time to appellant's sentence based upon his behavior in the
institution.
{¶ 10} As discussed above, we have previously addressed Hartfield's Reagan
Tokes Challenge. "Res judicata may be applied to bar further litigation of issues that were
1
We note the state's brief asserts we found Hartfield's Reagan Tokes Act challenge moot because we remanded
the matter for resentencing. State's brief at 1. That is inaccurate. We found Hartfield's ineffective assistance of
counsel claims as they related to sentencing were moot because we remanded the matter for resentencing.
Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00082 4
raised previously or could have been raised previously in an appeal." State v. Houston,
73 Ohio St.3d 346, 347, 652 N.E.2d 1018 (1995). Hartfield's issue has been "raised
previously" in an appeal, and we fully addressed and decided that issue. It is now res
judicata. Accordingly, we reject Hartfield's sole assignment of error.
{¶ 11} The Judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By King, J.,
Gwin, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
AJK/rw
[Cite as State v. Hartfield, 2023-Ohio-1260.]