State v. Marshall ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Marshall, 2023-Ohio-3751.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
ALLEN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 1-22-70
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CHARLES E. MARSHALL, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CR2022 0156
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: October 16, 2023
APPEARANCES:
Chima R. Ekeh for Appellant
John R. Willamowski, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 1-22-70
MILLER, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Charles E. Marshall (“Marshall”), appeals the
November 3, 2022 judgment of sentence of the Allen County Court of Common
Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On June 16, 2022, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Marshall on
two counts: Count One of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A), (C),
a first-degree felony, and Count Two of felonious assault in violation of R.C.
2903.11(A)(2), (D)(1)(a), a second-degree felony. Each of the counts contained a
firearm specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A). On June 27, 2022, Marshall
filed a written plea of not guilty.
{¶3} A jury trial was held on September 20-23, 2022. At the conclusion of
the trial, the jury found Marshall guilty of both counts and the attendant firearm
specifications. The trial court accepted the jury’s verdicts and found Marshall
guilty.
{¶4} On October 14, 2022, Marshall filed an objection and opposition to the
imposition of any indefinite sentence pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law. At the
sentencing hearing held on November 3, 2022, the trial court sentenced Marshall to
an indefinite term of a minimum of four years to a maximum of six years in prison
on each of Counts One and Two to run concurrently to one another. The trial court
-2-
Case No. 1-22-70
also imposed a sentence of three years in prison for the firearm specifications
associated with Counts One and Two, respectively. Further, the trial court ordered
the sentences imposed for the specifications be served consecutively to each other
and consecutively to the sentences imposed on Counts One and Two. Later that
day, the trial court filed its judgment entry of sentence.
{¶5} Marshall filed a notice of appeal on November 14, 2022. He raises three
assignments of error for our review.
First Assignment of Error
Marshall’s indefinite sentence pursuant to R.C. 2967.271 (The
Reagan Tokes Law) violates the right to a jury trial as protected
by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and
Article 1, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution. (Tr. Sentencing, pg.
16, tab 14-22)
Second Assignment of Error
R.C. 2967.271 (The Reagan Tokes Law) unconstitutionally
violates the separation of powers doctrine of the United States and
Ohio Constitution. (Tr. Sentencing, pg. 16, tab 14-22)
Third Assignment of Error
R.C. 2967.271 (The Reagan Tokes Law) violates the right to due
process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, and Article 1, Section 16, of the Ohio Constitution.
(Tr. Sentencing, pg. 16, tab 14-22)
{¶6} In the three assignments of error, which we address together, Marshall
contends the indefinite sentence of incarceration imposed pursuant to the Reagan
-3-
Case No. 1-22-70
Tokes Law violates his right to a trial by jury, runs afoul of the separation-of-powers
doctrine, and violates his right to due process.
{¶7} As this Court has noted in State v. Ball, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-21-16,
2022-Ohio-1549, challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law do not present a matter of
first impression to this Court. Ball at ¶ 59. “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 or infringe on
defendants’ due process rights.” Id. citing 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. Further, for the reasons stated in Ball, we also held that the remaining
constitutional issue under Reagan Tokes related to a jury trial is unavailing. Id. at ¶
61-63.
{¶8} Recently, in State v. Hacker, ___ Ohio St.3d ____, 2023-Ohio-2535,
the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed the constitutional validity of the Reagan
Tokes Law and held that it does not intrude upon the separation-of-powers doctrine,
does not implicate the offender’s right to a jury trial, and does not violate the
offender’s due-process rights. Id. at ¶ 25, 28, 40. Furthermore, in State v. Beck, 3d
Dist. Allen No. 1-22-80, 2023-Ohio-3008, this court addressed the same arguments
-4-
Case No. 1-22-70
Marshall raises in the instant appeal and, pursuant to the Supreme Court of Ohio’s
decision in Hacker, found the arguments unavailing. Beck at ¶ 8. See also State v.
Lemaster, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-23-10, 2023-Ohio-3427, ¶ 14.
{¶9} Thus, pursuant to the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in Hacker and
our decision in Beck, we find Marshall’s assignments of error not well-taken.
{¶10} Marshall’s assignments of error are overruled.
{¶11} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Allen County Court
of Common Pleas.
Judgment Affirmed
ZIMMERMAN and HESS, J.J., concur.
** Judge Michael D. Hess of the Fourth District Court of Appeals, sitting by
Assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
/hls
-5-