[Cite as State v. Stevens, 2022-Ohio-2474.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. CT2020-0010
:
TRENT STEVENS :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: On remand from the Supreme Court of
Ohio, Case No. 2021-0629
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 18, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
D. MICHAEL HADDOX CHRISTOPHER BRIGDON
MUSKINGUM COUNTY PROSECUTOR 8138 Somerset Road
Thornville, OH 43076
TAYLOR P. BENNINGTON
27 North 5th Street
P.O. Box 189
Zanesville, OH 43701
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0010 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} This matter is before this Court upon remand from the Supreme Court of
Ohio. In Defendant-Appellant Trent Stevens’ direct appeal of his conviction and sentence
by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, State of Ohio v. Trent Stevens, 5th
Dist. Muskingum No. CT2020-0010, 2021-Ohio-1156, we declined to address his second
Assignment of Error which challenged the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Act, and
his third Assignment of Error regarding trial counsel's failure to challenge the Act. We
found his challenges were not ripe for review. See Stevens, 2021-Ohio-1156, ¶ 36, 41.
{¶2} Stevens appealed our decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which
accepted the appeal on the propositions of law regarding the Reagan Tokes Act and held
the matter for decision in State v. Maddox, Case No. 2020-1266. On March 16, 2022, the
Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Maddox, Ohio St.3d , 2022-Ohio-764,
N.E.3d , where it found constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes Act are ripe for
review on direct appeal. By judgment entry filed on April 27, 2022, the Supreme Court
reversed our judgment in Stevens and remanded the matter for further proceedings
consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Maddox. Pursuant to the
Supreme Court’s judgment entry, we therefore address Stevens’ second and third
Assignments of Error.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶3} A recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary for the disposition of this
appeal.
{¶4} On October 9, 2019, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted
Defendant-Appellant Trent Stevens on one count of aggravated burglary with a repeat
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0010 3
violent offender specification, a first-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1) and
R.C. 2941.149, and one count of possession of drugs (methamphetamine), a second-
degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A).
{¶5} Stevens entered a plea of not guilty to the charges and the matter was set
for a jury trial on January 21, 2020.
{¶6} The jury trial commenced on January 21, 2020. On January 22, 2020, the
parties appeared before the trial court stating that Stevens had chosen to withdraw his
not guilty plea and instead plead guilty to an amended charge of aggravated robbery, a
first-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1) and possession of drugs
(methamphetamine), a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). (T. 272).
{¶7} After the plea colloquy, the trial court accepted Stevens’ plea of guilty. (T.
289). The trial court followed the joint recommendation of the parties and imposed a
minimum mandatory six-year prison term and an aggregate indefinite maximum prison
term of nine years. The trial court also imposed a mandatory fine of $7,500.00. The
sentencing entry was filed on January 23, 2020.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶8} On direct appeal, Stevens raised four Assignments of Error:
{¶9} “I. STEVENS WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY
PRIVATE COUNSEL, IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
{¶10} “II. AS AMENDED BY THE REAGAN TOKES ACT, THE REVISED
CODE’S SENTENCES FOR FIRST AND SECOND DEGREE QUALIFYING FELONIES
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0010 4
VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF
OHIO.
{¶11} “III. TRENT STEVENS RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL, IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 10, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
{¶12} “IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING STEVENS’ MOTION TO
WAIVE THE MANDATORY FINE.”
{¶13} Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s judgment entry remanding this matter
under State v. Maddox, we address the second and third Assignments of Error.
ANALYSIS
II.
{¶14} In his second Assignment of Error, Stevens challenges the constitutionality
of the Reagan Tokes Act.
{¶15} In State v. Householder, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2021-0026, 2022-
Ohio-1542, we set forth this Court's position on Stevens’ 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
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0010 5
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.
{¶16} Based on the forgoing authority, Stevens’ second Assignment of Error is
overruled.
III.
{¶17} Stevens’ second Assignment of Error argues his trial counsel rendered
ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes
Act. We disagree.
{¶18} To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must
demonstrate: (1) deficient performance by counsel, i.e., that counsel's performance fell
below an objective standard of reasonable representation, and (2) that counsel's errors
prejudiced the defendant, i.e., a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors, the
result of the trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–
688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136,
538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. “Reasonable
probability” is “probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland
at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0010 6
{¶19} Because we have found the Reagan Tokes Act is constitutional, Stevens
cannot demonstrate prejudice from counsel's failure to raise the claim in the trial court.
{¶20} The third Assignment of Error is overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶21} The judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.
By: Delaney, J.,
Gwin, P.J. and
Hoffman, J., concur.