State v. Beck ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Beck, 2023-Ohio-3008.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
ALLEN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-22-80
v.
MATTHEW R. BECK, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CR2021 0278
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: August 28, 2023
APPEARANCES:
F. Stephen Chamberlain for Appellant
John R. Willamowski, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 1-22-80
MILLER, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Matthew R. Beck (“Beck”), appeals the
November 28, 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 September 16, 2021, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Beck on
two counts of second-degree-felony felonious assault in violation of R.C.
2903.11(A)(2), and R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), respectively. Beck entered pleas of not
guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”). Following evaluations relating
to Beck’s NGRI plea, he subsequently withdrew his NGRI plea and the matter
proceeded to a change-of-plea hearing.
{¶3} On October 17, 2022, pursuant to a negotiated-plea agreement, Beck
withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a guilty plea to Count One. The trial court
accepted Beck’s guilty plea and found him guilty of Count One. At the
recommendation of the State, the trial court dismissed Count Two.
{¶4} At a sentencing hearing held on November 28, 2022, the trial court
sentenced Beck to an indefinite term of a minimum of three years to a maximum of
four and one-half years in prison on Count One. Later that day, the trial court filed
its judgment entry of sentence.
-2-
Case No. 1-22-80
{¶5} Beck filed a notice of appeal on December 27, 2022. He raises three
assignments of error for our review which we address together.
First Assignment of Error
The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is
unconstitutional because it violates the separation-of-powers
doctrine.
Second Assignment of Error
The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is
unconstitutional because it violates the right to due process.
Third Assignment of Error
The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is
unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional right to a
jury trial.
{¶6} In the three assignments of error, which we address together, Beck
contends the indefinite sentence of incarceration imposed pursuant to the Reagan
Tokes Law is unconstitutional as it violates the separation-of-powers doctrine and
violates his constitutional rights to due process and to a trial by jury.
{¶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
-3-
Case No. 1-22-80
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. Thus, pursuant to the Supreme
Court of Ohio’s decision in Hacker, we find Beck’s assignments of error not well-
taken.
{¶9} Beck’s assignments of error are overruled.
-4-
Case No. 1-22-80
{¶10} 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 POWELL, J.J., concur.
/jlr
** Judge Stephen W. Powell of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting
by Assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
-5-