State v. Figley , 2021 Ohio 2622 ( 2021 )

[Cite as State v. Figley, 2021-Ohio-2622.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-20-1167
Appellee Trial Court No. CR201902492
v.
Ramsey Michael Figley DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: July 30, 2021
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Autumn D. Adams, for appellant.
*****
ZMUDA, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Ramsey Michael Figley, appeals the November 4, 2019 judgment
of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. We sua sponte place this matter on the
accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1(A), and this judgment entry is not an
opinion of the court. See S.Ct.R.Rep.Op.3.1; App.R. 11.1(E); 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 12.
For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal as not ripe for review.
{¶ 2} On August 27, 2019, appellant was indicted on one count of felonious
assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (d), a felony in the second degree, and one
count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and (D)(1) and (D)(2), a
misdemeanor of the first degree. On October 2, 2019, pursuant to a plea agreement,
appellant entered a no contest plea to the felonious assault charge. The trial court
accepted the plea and found appellant guilty. On October 30, 2019, the trial court
sentenced appellant to an indefinite prison term of a minimum of eight and a maximum
of twelve years as provided under the Reagan Tokes law. The trial court also found the
offense is an offense of violence, and ordered a three-year term of mandatory post release
control. The trial court dismissed the domestic violence charge at the state’s request, as
provided by the plea agreement.
{¶ 3} Appellant filed a timely appeal, and raises a single, multi-pronged
assignment of error for our review:
Reagan Tokes is unconstitutional as it vests sentencing power in the
Executive Branch and fails to afford Appellant access to an attorney at any
disciplinary hearing while he is ODRC’s [sic.] custody.
A. The Reagan Tokes Act is unconstitutional
1. Appellant’s arguments are ripe for review.
2.
2. The Separation of Power’s Doctrine bars the Executive Branch
from interfering in the administration of justice, a task assigned solely to
the Judicial Branch.
3. It is a violation of Appellant’s procedural due process rights to be
denied access to counsel at every disciplinary hearing and the hearing to
determine whether he can be released at his minimum prison term, and each
hearing thereafter if his incarceration is continued.
{¶ 4} Our controlling precedent as to the sole issue raised, the constitutionality of
the provisions for indefinite sentencing in the Reagan Tokes law, as codified at R.C.
2967.271, requires dismissal of the appeal. See State v. Stenson, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-
20-1074, 2021-Ohio-2256, ¶ 14, citing State v. Maddox, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1253,
2020-Ohio-4702; State v. Velliquette, 160 N.E.3d 414, 2020-Ohio-4855 (6th Dist.); State
v. Montgomery, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1202, 2020-Ohio-5552; State v. Sawyer, 165
N.E.3d 844, 2020-Ohio-6980 (6th Dist.); State v. Acosta, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-20-
1068, L-20-1069, 2021-Ohio-757; State v. Bothuel, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1053, 2021-
Ohio-875; State v. Savage, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1073, 2021-Ohio-1549; State v.
Perry, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-025, 2021-Ohio-1748; State v. Shepard, 6th Dist.
Lucas No. L-20-1070, 2021-Ohio-1844; State v. Zambrano, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-
1224, 2021-Ohio-1906.
3.
{¶ 5} Beginning with our decision in Maddox, we have consistently held that a
challenge to the Reagan Tokes law becomes ripe only after an individual sentenced under
that law has completed the minimum term of the indefinite sentence and has been denied
release. Stenson at ¶ 14-15, citing Maddox at ¶ 7, 14. On December 28, 2020, the Ohio
Supreme Court determined that a conflict exists between Maddox and State v. Leet, 2d
Dist. Montgomery No. 28670, 2020-Ohio-459; State v. Ferguson, 2d Dist. Montgomery
No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153; State v. Barnes, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28613, 2020-
Ohio-4150; and State v. Guyton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-12-203, 2020-Ohio-3837.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the review of the following certified question:
Is the constitutionality of the provisions of the Reagan Tokes Act, which
allow the Department of Rehabilitation and Correctio[n] to administratively
extend a criminal defendant's prison term beyond the presumptive
minimum term, ripe for review on direct appeal from sentencing, or only
after the defendant has served the minimum term and been subject to
extension by application of the Act?
State v. Maddox, 160 Ohio St.3d 1505, 2020-Ohio-6913, 159 N.E.3d 1150.
{¶ 6} We, therefore, dismiss the appeal under Maddox, as appellant’s challenge to
the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes law is not ripe for review, while also noting the
conflict certified to the Supreme Court of Ohio, pursuant to Article IV, Section 3(B)(4),
Ohio Constitution on the same issue raised in Maddox.
4.
{¶ 7} Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Appeal dismissed.
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, P.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/.
5.