[Cite as State v. Woods, 2021-Ohio-3173.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2021-L-044
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
-v- Court of Common Pleas
ANTHONY T. WOODS,
Trial Court No. 2020 CR 000681
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided:
Judgment:
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor,
Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH
44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Vanessa R. Clapp, Lake County Public Defender, and Melissa A. Blake, Assistant Public
Defender, 125 East Erie Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Defendant-Appellant).
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Anthony T. Woods, appeals his conviction after a plea of guilty,
on one count of burglary. At issue is the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Act. For
the following reasons, we affirm.
{¶2} Appellant was indicted and charged with four counts arising from a burglary
in Willoughby, Ohio on July 25, 2020. Pursuant to a plea agreement, three counts were
dismissed and Appellant entered a guilty plea on one count of burglary, a felony of the
second degree, in violation of R.C. 2911.12 (A)(2). Thereafter, the matter was set for
sentencing.
{¶3} Prior to sentencing, Appellant moved the trial court to declare the Reagan
Tokes Act, as applicable to his sentencing, unconstitutional. The trial court denied the
motion. Appellant was sentenced to a prison term of four to six years.
{¶4} Appellant raises five assignments of error, all of which challenge the
constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Sentencing Act.
{¶5} “[1.] The Defendant-Appellant’s constitutional challenges to the
indeterminate prison sentence of four to six years that was ordered pursuant to the
‘Reagan Tokes Act,’ AKA Senate Bill 201, are ripe for review.
{¶6} [2.] The Defendant-Appellant’s indeterminate prison sentence of four to six
years that was ordered pursuant to the ‘Reagan Tokes Act,’ AKA Senate Bill 201, must
be reversed as the Reagan Tokes Act is unconstitutionally void for vagueness.
{¶7} [3.] The Defendant-Appellant’s indeterminate prison sentence of four to six
years that was ordered pursuant to the ‘Reagan Tokes Act,’ AKA Senate Bill 201, must
be reversed as the Reagan Tokes Act unconstitutionally violates the doctrine of
separation of powers.
{¶8} [4.] The Defendant-Appellant’s indeterminate prison sentence of four to six
years that was ordered pursuant to the ‘Reagan Tokes Act,’ AKA Senate Bill 201, violates
the constitutional right to trial by jury as guaranteed by the sixth and fourteenth
amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 5 of the Ohio
Constitution.
2
Case No. 2021-L-044
{¶9} [5.] The Defendant-Appellant’s indeterminate prison sentence of four to six
years that was ordered pursuant to the ‘Reagan Tokes Act,’ AKA Senate Bill 201, violates
his constitutional rights to fair trial and due process as guaranteed by the fifth, sixth and
fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 5 & 10
of the Ohio Constitution.”
{¶10} This court has previously described the Reagan Tokes act:
The Reagan Tokes Act went into effect in Ohio on March 22,
2019. The Act requires a sentencing court imposing a prison
term under R.C. 2929.14(A)(1)(a) or (2)(a), on or after the
effective date, to order a minimum prison term under that
provision and a maximum prison term as determined by R.C.
2929.144(B). The Act also sets forth a presumption that an
offender “shall be released from service of the sentence on
the expiration of the offender’s minimum prison term or on the
offender’s presumptive earned early release date, whichever
is earlier.” R.C. 2967.271(B). The offender’s presumptive
earned early release date is determined under R.C.
2967.271(F), which permits the sentencing court to reduce the
minimum term under certain circumstances. R.C.
2967.271(A)(2). The Department of Rehabilitation and
Corrections (“DRC”) may rebut the R.C. 2967.271(B)
presumption if it determines at a hearing that certain statutorily
enumerated factors apply. R.C. 2967.271(C). If the DRC
rebuts the presumption, it may maintain the offender’s
incarceration after the expiration of the minimum prison term
or presumptive earned early release date for a reasonable
period of time, which “shall not exceed the offender’s
maximum prison term.” R.C. 2967.271(D)(1).
State v. Ferguson, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-031, 2020-Ohio-5578, ¶ 8, appeal
accepted, 162 Ohio St.3d 1410, 2021-Ohio-961, 165 N.E.3d 333.
{¶11} “To be justiciable, a claim must be ripe for review, and a claim is not ripe ‘if
it rests on contingent events that may never occur at all.’” State ex rel. Quinn v. Delaware
Cty. Bd. of Elections, 152 Ohio St.3d 568, 2018-Ohio-966, 99 N.E.3d 362, ¶ 37, quoting
State ex rel. Jones v. Husted, 149 Ohio St.3d 110, 2016-Ohio-5752, 73 N.E.3d 463, ¶ 21.
3
Case No. 2021-L-044
Additionally, “the danger or dilemma of the plaintiff must be present, not contingent on the
happening of hypothetical future events and the threat to his position must be actual and
genuine and not merely possible or remote.” In re Arnott, 4th Dist. 190 Ohio App.3d 493,
2010-Ohio-5392, 942 N.E.2d 1124, ¶ 17, quoting Bilyeu v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. (1973),
36 Ohio St.2d 35, 65 O.O.2d 179, 303 N.E.2d 871, at syllabus.
{¶12} Initially, we must address that Appellant relies solely on State v. Wilburn,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109507, 2021-Ohio-578, in which the Eighth District Court of
Appeals held that constitutional challenges presented by the Reagan Tokes Act are ripe
for review.1 Yet, several districts, including this court, have conversely concluded that
constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes Act are not ripe for review “because it is
uncertain whether the offender’s release date will extend past the minimum term of
imprisonment imposed.” State v. Lavean, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-045, 2021-Ohio-
1456, ¶ 8. In Lavean, this court concluded that the proper channel to raise constitutional
challenges to the Reagan Tokes Act is by a habeas corpus petition, assuming the
offender is held longer than the minimum term sentenced. Id. at ¶ 11.
{¶13} Similarly, here, the mere possibility that Appellant may be subjected to a
longer prison term imposed by the Reagan Tokes Act is too remote and solely conditioned
on the hypothetical occurrence of future events. While it is possible that Appellant may
be subjected to a longer prison sentence, it is equally possible that Appellant will only
serve the minimum sentence of four years and the Reagan Tokes Act may not affect him.
As stated above, the mere possibility that the event could happen is insufficient to claim
1 This court acknowledges the issue of whether constitutional challenges presented by the Reagan Tokes Act are ripe
for review is currently before the Ohio Supreme Court as a certified conflict case in State v. Maddox, 160 Ohio St. 3d
1505, 2020-Ohio-6913, 159 N.E. 3d 1150.
4
Case No. 2021-L-044
the argument is ripe. In re Arnott, 190 Ohio App.3d 493, 2010-Ohio-5392, 942 N.E.2d
1124, ¶ 17 (4th Dist.), quoting Thomson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 09AP-782, 2010-Ohio-416, 2010 WL 438138, ¶ 10. Thus, the constitutional issues
are not yet ripe for review.
{¶14} Following the precedent of this court, we conclude that Appellant’s first
assignment of error, which argues that the constitutional issues presented by the Reagan
Tokes Act are ripe for review, is without merit. Thus, Woods’ assignments of error two
through five, which make specific constitutional challenges to the legislation, will not be
addressed as they are not yet ripe for review.
{¶15} The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J.,
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.,
concur.
5
Case No. 2021-L-044