State v. Stauffer , 2023 Ohio 1616 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Stauffer, 2023-Ohio-1616.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
ALLEN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-22-71
v.
CRAIG A. STAUFFER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CR 2022 0195
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: May 15, 2023
APPEARANCES:
F. Stephen Chamberlain for Appellant
John R. Willamowski, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 1-22-71
ZIMMERMAN, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Craig A. Stauffer (“Stauffer”), appeals the
November 7, 2022 judgment entry of sentencing of the Allen County Court of
Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On August 11, 2022, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Stauffer on:
Count One, of kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(2), (C)(1), a first-degree
felony; Count Two, of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2),
(D)(1)(a), a second-degree felony; and Count Three, of domestic violence in
violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), (D)(3), a fourth-degree felony. On August 22, 2022,
Stauffer filed written pleas of not guilty.
{¶3} On September 26, 2022, Stauffer withdrew his pleas of not guilty and
entered guilty pleas, under a negotiated-plea agreement, to an amended indictment.
Specifically, in exchange for his guilty pleas, the State agreed to amend Count One
to attempted kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and R.C. 2905.01(A)(2),
(C)(1), a second-degree felony and to dismiss Count Two if Stauffer pleaded guilty
to the amended charge under Count One and Count Three. The trial court accepted
Stauffer’s guilty pleas and dismissed Count Two.
{¶4} On November 7, 2022, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. The
trial court determined that Counts One and Three do not merge for purposes of
sentencing. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Stauffer to an indefinite sentence
of a minimum of six years to a maximum of nine years in prison under Count One
-2-
Case No. 1-22-71
and to a definite 18-month prison term under Count Three. Finally, the trial court
ordered that Counts One and Three be served consecutively for an aggregate
minimum term of seven and one-half years and a maximum term of 10 ½ years.
{¶5} Stauffer filed a timely appeal raising three assignment of error for our
review, which we will review together.
First Assignment of Error
The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is
unconstitutional because it violates the separation-of-powers
doctrine.
Second Assignment of Error
The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is
unconstitutional because it violates right to due process.
Third Assignment of Error
The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is
unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional right to a
jury trial.
{¶6} In his assignments of error, Stauffer argues that the indefinite sentence
of incarceration imposed on Count One pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law is
unconstitutional. Specifically, Stauffer asserts that these provisions violate the
separation-of-powers doctrine, infringe on his right to due process, and violate his
right to a jury trial.
{¶7} As this Court has noted in State v. Ball, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-21-16,
2022-Ohio-1549, challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law do not present a matter of
-3-
Case No. 1-22-71
first impression to this Court. Ball at ¶ 59. “Since the indefinite sentencing
provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law went into effect in March 2019, we have
repeatedly been asked to address the constitutionality of these provisions. We have
invariably concluded that the indefinite sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes
Law do not facially violate the separation-of-powers doctrine or infringe on
defendants’ due process rights.” Id., citing e.g., State v. Crawford, 3d Dist. Henry
No. 7-20-05, 2021-Ohio-547, ¶ 10-11; State v. Hacker, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-20-01,
2020-Ohio-5048, ¶ 22; State v. Wolfe, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-21-16, 2022-Ohio-96,
¶ 21. Further, for the reasons stated in Ball, the remaining constitutional issue under
Reagan Tokes related to a jury trial is also unavailing. Id. at ¶ 61-63. Thus, on the
basis of Ball and our prior precedent, we find no merit to Stauffer’s arguments.
{¶8} Accordingly, Stauffer’s first, second, and third assignments of error are
overruled.
{¶9} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
MILLER, P.J. and EPLEY, J., concur.
/jlr
** Judge Christopher B. Epley of the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting
by Assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
-4-