State v. Sims
Citation2023 Ohio 4538
Date Filed2023-12-14
Docket112598
JudgeCelebrezze
Cited0 times
StatusPublished
Syllabus
State appeal R.C. 2953.08(B)(2) sentence contrary to law Reagan Tokes Law constitutional. The trial court erred in finding that the Reagan Tokes Law was unconstitutional and declining to sentence appellee thereunder.
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
[Cite as State v. Sims,2023-Ohio-4538
.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 112598
v. :
MAYLON SIMS, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 14, 2023
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-22-675237-A
Appearances:
Michael C. OāMalley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Daniel T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellant.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
Noelle A. Powell, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J.:
Appellant, the state of Ohio (āthe stateā), appeals the trial courtās journal
entry sentencing appellee, Maylon Sims (āSimsā), to a definite prison term of four
years, contrary to the provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law. After thoroughly
reviewing the facts of this case and the applicable law, we reverse and remand to the
trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Factual and Procedural History
This matter involved the theft of a vehicle in which the victimās son, who
was ten years old, was asleep in the backseat. The vehicle was stolen from Euclid
and driven to East Cleveland, at which point the driver woke up the child and told
him to get out of the vehicle. The child was dropped off at an elementary school
around 8:30 p.m. He walked around and found someone to call the police for him
and was eventually reunited with his mother.
The vehicle was recovered the next day. The steering wheel was
swabbed for DNA, which came back as belonging to Sims. The victimās phone was
in the vehicle when it was stolen, and police were able to obtain cell phone tower
information showing the location of the phone.
Sims pled guilty to one count of attempted kidnapping, a felony of the
second degree, in violation of R.C. 2905.01(B) and 2923.02; and one count of grand
theft, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A).
The court imposed a definite four-year prison term for the attempted
kidnapping offense and 18 months in prison for the grand theft charge, to run
concurrently. It is undisputed that, pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law, the trial
court was required to impose an indefinite sentence for appellantās second-degree
felony offense. The trial court, however, declared the Reagan Tokes Law
unconstitutional, finding that it violated the right to trial by jury, the doctrine of
separation of powers, and the right to due process and declined to sentence Sims
under it.
The state then filed the instant appeal, raising one assignment of error
for our review:
The trial court plainly erred when it found S.B. 201 to be
unconstitutional and did not impose an indefinite sentence pursuant to
S.B. 201.
II. Law and Analysis
Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(B)(2), the state has the right to appeal a
sentence that is contrary to law. A sentence that fails to impose a mandatory
provision is contrary to law. State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio- 1,922 N.E.2d 923
, ¶ 21.
In its sole assignment of error, the state argues that the trial court
plainly erred when it did not impose an indefinite sentence pursuant to S.B. 201. In
response to the stateās appeal, Sims argues that the trial court was correct in its
determination that the Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional for the reasons stated
above.
In State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535, the Supreme
Court of Ohio recently addressed similar arguments and found the Reagan Tokes
Law to be constitutional.1 The Hacker Court determined the law does not violate
1 Sims acknowledges that the Supreme Court of Ohio determined in Hacker that
indefinite sentences imposed pursuant to S.B. 201 are constitutional; however, he
presents his arguments āfor the purpose of issue preservation in the event that there is
future litigation which could result in relief for Mr. Sims.ā
the separation-of-powers doctrine, the right to a jury trial, or the right to due
process. Id. at ¶ 41. In light of this ruling, as well as the fact that Simsās arguments
do not present novel issues or any new theory challenging the constitutional validity
of any aspect of the Reagan Tokes Law left unaddressed by the Hacker Court, we
sustain the stateās sole assignment of error.
Judgment reversed, and case remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee 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.
_________________________________________
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, PRESIDING JUDGE
LISA B. FORBES, J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR