State v. Hunter , 2022 Ohio 2377 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Hunter, 2022-Ohio-2377.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
-vs-
Case No. CT2020-0042
TEDDIE HUNTER
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Muskingum County
Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
CR2020-0089
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 8, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
RONALD L. WELCH CHRIS BRIGDON
Prosecuting Attorney 8138 Somerset Road
Muskingum County, Ohio Thornville, Ohio 43076
TAYLOR P. BENNINGTON
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Muskingum County, Ohio
27 North Fifth Street
P.O. Box 189
Zanesville, Ohio 43701-0189
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0042 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} This case comes before this Court from the judgment entered by the Ohio
Supreme Court on April 27, 2022, remanding this case for this Court to consider whether
the challenged provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law are constitutional. Defendant-
appellant is Teddie Hunter. Appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On February 2, 2020, Muskingum County Sheriff's deputies were
dispatched to 16 Gaslight Lane in Zanesville, Ohio. Upon arriving at the residence,
Charles Perry and Laura Kronbitter, who resided at the home with their infant son,
reported a naked man attempted to force himself into their home. Perry and Kronbitter
told police the naked man said he was afraid because someone was trying to kill him.
Perry stated the man tried to force his way into the home with a PVC pipe, and tried to hit
Perry with the pipe by using the pipe as a spear. The man forced his foot inside the
residence, preventing Perry from closing the door. While Kronbitter called the police,
Perry managed to force the man outside.
{¶3} Police located a naked man, later identified as Appellant, at 15 Gaslight
Lane. Appellant admitted to using methamphetamine, and methamphetamine was found
in his system.
{¶4} Appellant was charged with one count of aggravated burglary with a repeat
violent offender specification. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, the State amended the
charge to one count of burglary, in exchange for Appellant's plea of guilty to the charge.
Following a presentence investigation, Appellant was sentenced to eight to twelve years
incarceration. Appellant appealed the judgment of conviction and sentence, assigning as
error:
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0042 3
I. AS AMENDED BY THE REAGAN TOKES ACT, THE REVISED
CODE'S SENTENCES FOR FIRST AND SECOND DEGREE QUALIFYING
FELONIES VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THE STATE OF OHIO.
II. TEDDIE HUNTER 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.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SENTENCED HUNTER
TO A MAXIMUM TERM OF INCARCERATION, IN VIOLATION OF HIS
RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, GUARANTEED BY SECTION 10, ARTICLE
I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, AND THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ORDERING HUNTER TO PAY
COURT COSTS.
{¶5} This Court found the issue of the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law
to be not yet ripe for review, and overruled Appellant’s remaining assignments of error.
State v. Hunter, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2020-0042, 2021-Ohio-1424. This case
came before the Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed this Court's
decision finding the issue of constitutionality not ripe for review, and remanded to this
Court with instructions to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law.
In re Cases Held for the Decision in State v. Maddox, 2022-Ohio-1352.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0042 4
I.
{¶6} In his first assignment of error, Appellant challenges the presumptive
release feature of R.C. 2967.271, arguing it violates his constitutional rights to trial by jury
and due process of law, and further violates the constitutional requirement of separation
of powers.
{¶7} 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, 2020 WL
7054428, 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, 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, 2020
WL 4919694; State v. Hacker, 3rd Dist., 2020-Ohio-5048, 161 N.E.3d 112; State v.
Guyton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-12-203, 2020-Ohio-3837, 2020 WL 4279793; State
v. Delvallie, 8th Dist., 2022-Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 536.
{¶8} The first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶9} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues his trial counsel was
ineffective by failing to raise the constitutionality of R.C. 2967.271 in the trial court.
{¶10} A properly licensed attorney is presumed competent. State v. Hamblin, 37
Ohio St.3d 153, 524 N.E.2d 476 (1988). Therefore, in order to prevail on a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must show counsel's performance fell below
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0042 5
an objective standard of reasonable representation and but for counsel's error, the result
of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d
373 (1989). In other words, Appellant must show counsel's conduct so undermined the
proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having
produced a just result. Id.{¶11} Because we have found R.C. 2967.271 to be constitutional, Appellant has
not demonstrated prejudice from counsel's failure to raise the claim in the trial court.
{¶12} The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶13} The judgment of the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Baldwin, P.J. and
Gwin, J. concur