State v. Whetstone , 2022 Ohio 800 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Whetstone, 
    2022-Ohio-800
    .]
    COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
    STATE OF OHIO,                                     :
    Plaintiff-Appellant,              :
    No. 109671
    v.                        :
    TRAVON WHETSONE,                                   :
    Defendant-Appellee.               :
    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
    JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
    RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 17, 2022
    Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
    Case No. CR-19-646601-A
    Appearances:
    Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
    Attorney, and Daniel T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting
    Attorney, for appellant.
    Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender and
    Robert B. McCaleb, Assistant Public Defender, for
    appellee.
    MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:
    Appellant, the state of Ohio, appeals the sentence imposed by the trial
    court upon appellee, Travon Whetstone. On March 26, 2020, the trial court
    sentenced Whetstone to an aggregate five-year sentence for robbery but did not
    impose an indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law, as defined in R.C.
    2901.011. In State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 
    2022-Ohio-470
     (en
    banc), this court overruled the reasons that the trial court found the Reagan Tokes
    Law to be unconstitutional, and we vacated the judgment of the trial court.
    Travon Whetstone was charged with a 17-count indictment that
    included multiple charges of aggravated robbery, first-degree felonies, and robbery,
    second- and third-degree felonies as well as accompanying gun specifications
    occurring on or about November 29, 2019. On March 3, 2020, Whetstone entered
    into a plea agreement with the state of Ohio and pleaded guilty to one count of
    robbery with a three-year firearm specification, a felony of the second degree; one
    count of grand theft, a felony of the fourth degree; and two counts of robbery,
    felonies of the second degree. During the plea colloquy, the trial court advised
    Whetstone that he was subject to the Reagan Tokes Law and could receive an
    indefinite sentence.
    On March 25, 2020, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. At that
    hearing, the trial court held the Reagan Tokes Law to be unconstitutional and noted
    the state’s objection. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of five years,
    consisting of three years on the gun specification consecutive to two-year concurrent
    sentences on the robbery charges. The trial court did not impose sentence on the
    charge of grand theft, determining that it was an allied offense to one count of
    robbery with the state electing to have sentence imposed on the robbery charge.
    Following the appeal in this sentence, the trial court issued a nunc pro
    tunc journal entry adopting an opinion from the Hamilton County Court of Common
    Pleas, State v. Oneal, Hamilton C.P. No. B 1903562, 
    2019 WL 7670061
     (Nov. 20,
    2019), which outlined reasons for finding the Reagan Tokes Law to be
    unconstitutional. In Oneal, the court held that the indefinite sentencing scheme
    enacted under the Reagan Tokes Law violates the constitutional doctrine providing
    for the separation of powers and that the administrative process that allows the Ohio
    Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”) to keep an offender
    incarcerated past the stated minimum sentence deprives the offender of procedural
    due process.
    In this appeal, the state of Ohio alleges one assignment of error that
    reads, “The trial court erred in finding the indefinite sentence required under S.B.
    201 to be unconstitutional.” The Ohio Revised Code provides the state the right to
    appeal a sentence if it is contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(B)(2). A sentence that fails
    to impose a mandatory provision is contrary to law. E.g., State v. Underwood, 
    124 Ohio St.3d 365
    , 
    2010-Ohio-1
    , 
    922 N.E.2d 923
    , ¶ 21.
    In State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 
    2022-Ohio-470
    (en banc), this court overruled the arguments underlying the trial court’s finding
    that the Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional. Because the trial court did not
    impose sentence in accordance with the Reagan Tokes Law, we find the sentence to
    be contrary to law and sustain the state’s assignment of error. We reverse the
    sentence imposed by the trial court and remand this matter to the trial court for
    resentencing.
    This cause is reversed and remanded to the lower court for further
    proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    It is ordered that appellant recover of 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.
    ____________________________
    MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
    MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
    EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
    N.B. Judge Eileen T. Gallagher joined the dissent by Judge Lisa B. Forbes in
    Delvallie and would have found that R.C. 2967.271(C) and (D) of the Reagan Tokes
    Law are unconstitutional.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 109671

Citation Numbers: 2022 Ohio 800

Judges: Sheehan

Filed Date: 3/17/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/17/2022