[Cite as State v. Doughty, 2022-Ohio-1854.]
COURT OF APPEALS
PERRY COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
:
-vs-
:
JAMES R. DOUGHTY : Case No. 2020 CA 00001
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: On remand from the Supreme Court
of Ohio, Case No. 2021-0458
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 2, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOSEPH A. FLAUTT ADDISON M. SPRIGGS
111 North High Street 250 East Broad Street
P.O. Box 569 Suite 1400
New Lexington, OH 43764-0569 Columbus, OH 43215
Wise, Earle, P.J.
{¶ 1} This matter is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of Ohio. In
Defendant-Appellant James Doughty's direct appeal, State v. Doughty, 5th Dist. Perry
No. 2020-CA-00001, 2021-Ohio-651, we declined to address his second assignment of
error which challenged the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Act as we found the
challenges were not ripe for review. In State v. Maddox, slip opinion No. 2022-Ohio-764,
however, the Supreme Court of Ohio found constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes
Act are ripe for review on direct appeal. We therefore herein address Doughty's second
assignment of error.1
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} A recitation of the underlying facts in this matter is unnecessary for our
resolution of this matter.
{¶ 3} Following convictions for three counts of domestic violence, two counts of
felonious assault, four counts of violating a protection order, and one count of aggravated
menacing, Doughty was sentenced pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act to 14 to 17.5 years
incarceration. On direct appeal, Doughty challenged this indefinite prison term in his
second assignment of error which we declined to address, finding it was not ripe for
review. The assignment of error left unaddressed is as follows:
II
{¶ 4} "BECAUSE THE REAGAN TOKES ACT VIOLATES THE OHIO AND
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS, MR. DOUGHTY'S SENTENCE IS CONTRARY
1
We have previously addressed Doughty's remaining assignment of error in our original opinion and will not revisit
that assignment of error.
TO LAW. R.C.2953.08(G)(2); SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE
UNITES STATES CONSTITUTION; ARTICLES I, II, AND III OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION; ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 5, 10 AND 16 OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION."
{¶ 5} In his second assignment of error, Doughty challenges the constitutionality
of the Regan Tokes Act. Specifically, Doughty argues it 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. We disagree.
{¶ 6} Recently, in State v. Householder, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2021-0026,
2022-Ohio-1542, we set forth this Court's position on Doughty's arguments:
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of The Honorable W.
Scott Gwin in State v. Wolfe, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2020CA00021,
2020-Ohio-5501, we find the Reagan Tokes Law does not violate
Appellant's constitutional rights to trial by jury and due process of
law, and does not violate the constitutional requirement of separation
of powers. We hereby adopt the dissenting opinion in Wolfe as the
opinion of this Court. In so holding, we also note the sentencing law
has been found constitutional by the Second, Third, Sixth, and
Twelfth Districts, and also by the Eighth District sitting en banc. See,
e.g., State v. Ferguson, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-
Ohio-4153; State v. Hacker, 3rd Dist. Logan No. 8-20-01, 2020-Ohio-
5048; State v. Maddox, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1253, 2022-Ohio-
1350; State v. Guyton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-12-203, 2020-
Ohio-3837; State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-
Ohio-470. Further, we reject Appellant's claim the Reagan Tokes Act
violates equal protection for the reasons stated in State v. Hodgkin,
12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-08-048, 2021-Ohio-1353.
{¶ 7} Based on the forgoing authority, Doughty's second assignment of error is
overruled.
{¶ 8} The judgment of the Perry County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By Wise, Earle, P.J.
Delaney and
Baldwin, J. concur
EEW/rw