State v. Johnson , 2023 Ohio 990 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Johnson, 2023-Ohio-990.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2022-L-067
2022-L-068
Plaintiff-Appellee,
- vs - Criminal Appeals from the
Court of Common Pleas
ROBIN L. JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant. Trial Court Nos. 2020 CR 000440
2021 CR 000846
OPINION
Decided: March 27, 2023
Judgment: Affirmed
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Kristi L. Winner, Assistant Prosecutor,
Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH
44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Donald K. Pond, Jr., 567 East Turkeyfoot Lake Road, Suite 107, Akron, OH 44319 (For
Defendant-Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Robin L. Johnson, appeals his sentences for
Tampering with Records, Identity Theft, Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity and OVI,
in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, we affirm the
decision of the lower court.
{¶2} On November 2, 2020, in Lake County Court of Common Pleas Case No.
20 CR 000440, Johnson was indicted by the Lake County Grand Jury for nine counts,
including Tampering with Records, Forgery, Identity Fraud, and Operating a Vehicle
Under the Influence. On July 1, 2021, in Case No. 21 CR 000846, he was indicted for 61
counts, which included Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity, Forgery, Theft, and
Counterfeiting.
{¶3} On May 10, 2022, in Case No. 20 CR 000440, Johnson entered a plea of
guilty to two counts of Tampering with Records, felonies of the third degree, in violation
of R.C. 2913.42(A)(1); Identity Fraud, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C.
2913.49(B)(2), and OVI, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C.
4511.19(A)(1)(a). In Case No. 21 CR 000846, Johnson pled guilty to Engaging in a
Pattern of Corrupt Activity, a felony of the second degree, in violation of R.C.
2923.32(A)(1). The convictions arose from his use of a false identity and a scheme to
steal checks from a post office mailbox and alter them. The court accepted Johnson’s
guilty pleas.
{¶4} A sentencing hearing was held on June 27, 2022. In Case No. 20 CR
000440, the court ordered Johnson to serve consecutive terms of one year for each count
of Tampering with Records and Identity Fraud, and a concurrent term of three months for
OVI. In Case No. 21 CR 000846, for Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity, the court
ordered Johnson to serve a sentence of seven years to 10.5 years. The terms in the two
cases were ordered to be served consecutively for a total prison term of 10 to 13.5 years.
{¶5} On appeal, Johnson raises the following assignment of error:
{¶6} “The trial court erred by imposing an indefinite sentence upon Robin L.
Johnson, Defendant-Appellant, pursuant to R.C. 2901.011, et al. — the Reagan Tokes
Law, contrary to the United States and Ohio Constitutions.”
{¶7} In his sole assignment of error, Johnson argues that his sentence for
2
Case No. 2022-L-067, 2022-L-068
Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity is improper because it was an indefinite sentence
ordered pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law, which he claims is unconstitutional. Johnson
raises the following arguments: the issue of the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law
is ripe for review; Reagan Tokes violates the doctrine of separation of powers by allowing
the ODRC to try, convict, and sentence him for infractions committed while in prison; that
he will be denied a fair hearing where prison officials rather than a neutral magistrate will
determine whether he should remain incarcerated; and Reagan Tokes violates his right
to due process given his liberty interest in release after the expiration of the minimum
term.
{¶8} As to his initial argument that this matter is ripe for review, it is accurate that
the Ohio Supreme Court has held that a challenge to the constitutionality of the Reagan
Tokes Law is “ripe for review on direct appeal.” State v. Maddox, 168 Ohio St.3d 292,
2022-Ohio-764, 198 N.E.3d 797, ¶ 11. However, such argument “is merely a gatekeeper
for analyzing the remaining constitutional arguments,” which lack merit. State v. Allen,
11th Dist. Lake No. 2021-L-060, 2022-Ohio-4243, ¶ 30.
{¶9} This court has fully addressed the challenges to Reagan Tokes raised by
Johnson, including issues relating to due process, separation of powers, and the right to
a fair hearing, found that these arguments lacked merit, and held that Reagan Tokes is
constitutional. State v. Reffitt, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2021-L-129, 2022-Ohio-3371; State v.
Moran, 2022-Ohio-3610, 198 N.E.3d 922 (11th Dist.); State v. Shannon, 11th Dist.
Trumbull No. 2021-T-0049, 2022-Ohio-4160. Other appellate courts throughout Ohio
have also upheld the law as constitutional. See State v. Guyton, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.
C-190657, 2022-Ohio-2962; State v. Ferguson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-
3
Case No. 2022-L-067, 2022-L-068
Ohio-4153; State v. Hacker, 2020-Ohio-5048, 161 N.E.3d 112 (3d Dist.); State v.
Bontrager, 2022-Ohio-1367, 188 N.E.3d 607 (4th Dist.); State v. Ratliff, 2022-Ohio-1372,
190 N.E.3d 684 (5th Dist.); State v. Maddox, 2022-Ohio-1350, 188 N.E.3d 682 (6th Dist.);
State v. Runner, 2022-Ohio-4756, __ N.E.3d __ (7th Dist.); State v. Delvallie, 2022-Ohio-
470, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist.); State v. Guyton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-12-203,
2020-Ohio-3837. We do not find that Johnson raises any argument left unaddressed in
this court’s prior opinions. Pursuant to the above authorities, Johnson’s challenges to the
constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law lack merit.
{¶10} The sole assignment of error is without merit.
{¶11} For the foregoing reasons, Johnson’s sentences are affirmed. Costs to be
taxed against appellant.
JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,
concur.
4
Case No. 2022-L-067, 2022-L-068