State v. Bradley , 2023 Ohio 3630 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Bradley, 2023-Ohio-3630.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff- Appellee, :
No. 112320
v. :
JOHN BRADLEY, JR., :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 5, 2023
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-21-657961-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Tasha L. Forchione, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
John T. Martin, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:
Defendant-appellant John Bradley Jr. pled guilty in four separate
cases on August 13, 2021. This appeal only concerns Cuyahoga CP.
No.-CR-21-657961. In Count 1 of that case, Bradley was convicted of felonious
assault, a felony of the second degree, which is a qualifying felony subject to an
indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law, and Bradley received seven to ten-
and-a-half years for the offense. In his direct appeal, he challenged the
constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law, raising claims based on the right to a jury
trial, separation of powers, and due process. This court rejected his claims and
affirmed the trial court’s judgment. State v. Bradley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
110882, 2022-Ohio-1075.
Bradley subsequently filed a motion, pro se, for a reopening of the
case, claiming his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the trial
court provided the proper advisement under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) at sentencing as
required by the Reagan Tokes Law. This court granted the motion for reopening,
vacated Bradley’s sentence, and remanded the case to the trial court for the limited
purpose of resentencing to provide the requisite advisement. State v. Bradley, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110882, 2022-Ohio-2954. Upon remand, the trial court held a
limited resentencing hearing. It provided the advisement required by R.C.
2919.19(B)(2)(c) and reimposed the same sentence.
Bradley now appeals from that judgment and raises a single
assignment of error. He again argues that the Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional
on its face and brings similar claims he had raised on direct appeal.
A day before he filed the instant notice of appeal, the Supreme Court of
Ohio decided State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion N0. 2023-Ohio-2535, rejecting similar
claims regarding the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law. Pursuant to
Hacker, we overrule Bradley’s sole assignment of error and affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
__________________________________
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR