State v. Beck

2023 Ohio 3008

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 28, 2023
• Docket: 1-22-80
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Beck, 2023-Ohio-3008.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-22-80

v.

MATTHEW R. BECK, OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR2021 0278

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: August 28, 2023

APPEARANCES:

F. Stephen Chamberlain for Appellant

John R. Willamowski, Jr. for Appellee Case No. 1-22-80

MILLER, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Matthew R. Beck (“Beck”), appeals the

November 28, 2022 judgment of sentence of the Allen County Court of Common

Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On September 16, 2021, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Beck on

two counts of second-degree-felony felonious assault in violation of R.C.

2903.11(A)(2), and R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), respectively. Beck entered pleas of not

guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”). Following evaluations relating

to Beck’s NGRI plea, he subsequently withdrew his NGRI plea and the matter

proceeded to a change-of-plea hearing.

{¶3} On October 17, 2022, pursuant to a negotiated-plea agreement, Beck

withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a guilty plea to Count One. The trial court

accepted Beck’s guilty plea and found him guilty of Count One. At the

recommendation of the State, the trial court dismissed Count Two.

{¶4} At a sentencing hearing held on November 28, 2022, the trial court

sentenced Beck to an indefinite term of a minimum of three years to a maximum of

four and one-half years in prison on Count One. Later that day, the trial court filed

its judgment entry of sentence.

-2- Case No. 1-22-80

{¶5} Beck filed a notice of appeal on December 27, 2022. He raises three

assignments of error for our review which we address 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 the 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 the three assignments of error, which we address together, Beck

contends the indefinite sentence of incarceration imposed pursuant to the Reagan

Tokes Law is unconstitutional as it violates the separation-of-powers doctrine and

violates his constitutional rights to due process and to a trial by jury.

{¶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

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

-3- Case No. 1-22-80

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, we also held that the remaining

constitutional issue under Reagan Tokes related to a jury trial is unavailing. Id. at ¶

61-63.

{¶8} Recently, in State v. Hacker, ___ Ohio St.3d ____, 2023-Ohio-2535,

the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed the constitutional validity of the Reagan

Tokes Law and held that it does not intrude upon the separation-of-powers doctrine,

does not implicate the offender’s right to a jury trial, and does not violate the

offender’s due-process rights. Id. at ¶ 25, 28, 40. Thus, pursuant to the Supreme

Court of Ohio’s decision in Hacker, we find Beck’s assignments of error not well-

taken.

{¶9} Beck’s assignments of error are overruled.

-4- Case No. 1-22-80

{¶10} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Allen County Court

of Common Pleas.

ZIMMERMAN and POWELL, J.J., concur.

/jlr

** Judge Stephen W. Powell of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting by Assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

-5-