State v. Heater , 2023 Ohio 1789 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Heater, 2023-Ohio-1789.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HANCOCK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 5-22-32
v.
MADELEINE R. HEATER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 2022 CR 106
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: May 30, 2023
APPEARANCES:
William T. Cramer for Appellant
Phillip A. Riegle for Appellee
Case No. 5-22-32
WALDICK, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Madeleine R. Heater (“Heater”), appeals the
judgment of sentence entered in the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas on
October 5, 2022. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Procedural History
{¶2} Procedurally, this case originated on March 1, 2022, when the Hancock
County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Heater with one count of
Aggravated Possession of Drugs (Methamphetamine), a first-degree felony in
violation of R.C. 2925.11(A).
{¶3} On March 4, 2022, an arraignment was held and Heater entered an
initial plea of not guilty. Several months of pretrial proceedings then ensued.
{¶4} On August 5, 2022, a change of plea hearing was held. At that time,
Heater entered a negotiated plea of guilty to an amended indictment, the possession
charge in the original indictment having been amended upon the state’s motion to a
second-degree felony.
{¶5} On September 21, 2022, a sentencing hearing was held. At that time,
Heater was sentenced to a minimum prison term of three years, with a potential
maximum prison term of four and one-half years.
{¶6} On October 13, 2022, Heater filed the instant appeal, in which she raises
a single assignment of error for our review.
-2-
Case No. 5-22-32
Assignment of Error
Indefinite prison terms imposed under the Reagan Tokes Law
violate the jury trial guarantee, the doctrine of separation of
powers, and due process principles under the federal and state
constitutions.
Analysis
{¶7} In the sole assignment of error, Heater contends that the trial court erred
in imposing an indefinite prison term pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act, with Heater
arguing that the Reagan Tokes Act is unconstitutional.
{¶8} Heater did not challenge the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law
in the trial court, so we therefore apply the plain-error standard of review in this
case. State v. Ball, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-21-16, 2022-Ohio-1549, ¶ 57. “An error
qualifies as ‘plain error’ only if it is obvious and but for the error, the outcome of
the proceeding clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Barnhart, 3d Dist.
Putnam No. 12-20-08, 2021-Ohio-2874, ¶ 8, citing State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio
St.3d 227, 245, 2002-Ohio-2126, ¶ 32.
{¶9} As this Court noted in Ball, supra, challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law
do not present a matter of first impression in 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
-3-
Case No. 5-22-32
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. We have also rejected constitutional challenges related to the
jury trial issue. See Ball at ¶ 61-63.
{¶10} Thus, on the basis of Ball and other prior precedent, this Court finds
no merit to Heater’s arguments in this case. The assignment of error is overruled.
{¶11} Having found no error prejudicial to the defendant-appellant in the
particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Hancock County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
MILLER, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.
/jlr
-4-