State v. Velliquette , 2022 Ohio 2747 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Velliquette, 2022-Ohio-2747.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-19-1232
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201902337
v.
Dyllan Velliquette DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: August 5, 2022
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Autumn D. Adams, for appellant.
*****
ZMUDA, J.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on remand from the Ohio Supreme Court,
following reversal of our determination that the challenge to indefinite sentencing under
R.C. 2967.271 (the “Reagan Tokes Law”) is not ripe for review. See State v. Velliquette,
2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414, ¶ 10, motion to certify allowed, 161 Ohio St.3d 1415,
2021-Ohio-120, 161 N.E.3d 708, ¶ 10, and rev'd and remanded sub nom. In re Cases
Held for the Decision in State v. Maddox, 2022-Ohio-1352, ¶ 10.
{¶ 2} Appellant Dyllan Veliquette was sentenced under the Reagan Tokes Law,
after entering a no contest plea to aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. In his
direct appeal, appellant challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, and
also argued the Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of
powers doctrine and his due process rights. We affirmed the trial court’s denial of the
motion to suppress and dismissed the appeal as to the challenge to the Reagan Tokes
Law, finding the issue not ripe for review as stated in State v. Maddox, 6th Dist. Lucas
No. L-19-1253, 2020-Ohio-4702, reversed and remanded State v. Maddox, Slip Opinion
No. 2022-Ohio-764.
{¶ 3} Upon review of the remanded assignment of error, appellant’s constitutional
challenge raises issues previously raised in this court. In State v. Gifford, 6th Dist. Lucas
No. L-21-1201, 2022-Ohio-1620, we found that the Reagan Tokes Law does not violate
the separation-of-powers doctrine. Then, in State v. Stenson, 2022-Ohio-2072, --- N.E.3d
---- (6th Dist.), we found that the Reagan Tokes Law does not, on its face, infringe upon a
defendant’s right to due process. Most recently, in State v. Eaton, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-
21-1121, 2022-Ohio-2432, we reiterated our prior determinations as to the
2.
constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law upon a thorough analysis of arguments
identical to those raised by appellant in this case.
{¶ 4} Finding no new issues raised within appellant’s argument of error, we find
the separation-of-powers and due process arguments lack merit, consistent with our prior
determinations in Gifford, Stenson, and Eaton. Accordingly, appellant’s second
assignment of error, asserted in his direct appeal and deemed ripe for review, is not well-
taken.
{¶ 5} For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the judgments of the Lucas County
Court of Common Pleas of August 30, 2019 and September 12, 2019. Appellant is
ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgments affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
____________________________
Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
3.