[Cite as State v. Gossman, 2021-Ohio-1928.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HENRY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 7-21-01
v.
ERIC D. GOSSMAN, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Henry County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 20 CR 0086
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: June 7, 2021
APPEARANCES:
Autumn D. Adams for Appellant Case No. 7-21-01
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Eric D. Gossman (“Gossman”), brings this appeal
from the December 9, 2020 judgment of the Henry County Common Pleas Court
sentencing him to five years of community control after Gossman pled guilty to, and
was convicted of, Felonious Assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a first
degree felony. On appeal, Gossman argues that, even though he was placed on
community control, the indefinite prison term that was reserved by the trial court to
be imposed in the event that Gossman’s community control was revoked was
unconstitutional.
Background
{¶2} On August 26, 2020, Gossman was indicted for Aggravated Menacing
in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A), a first degree misdemeanor, Felonious Assault in
violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a first degree felony, and Assault on a Police
Officer in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), a fourth degree felony. Pursuant to a
written negotiated agreement, Gossman pled guilty to Felonious Assault as indicted,
and, in exchange for his guilty plea, the remaining charges were dismissed. Further,
the state agreed that it would not object to the trial court “overcoming the
presumption for prison” and imposing a sentence of community control.1
1 It was evident that Gossman was in favor of the state’s recommended sentence; however, it was not officially an “agreed sentencing recommendation.”
-2- Case No. 7-21-01
{¶3} After a pre-sentence investigation was conducted, Gossman was
sentenced to serve five years of community control as recommended by the state.
He was then notified that if he violated his community control, and if his community
control was revoked, he would be sentenced to four years in prison, with a maximum
indefinite prison term of six years. A judgment entry memorializing Gossman’s
sentence was filed December 9, 2020. It is from this judgment that he appeals,
asserting the following assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error 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 [in] ODRC’s custody.
{¶4} In his assignment of error, Gossman argues that the Reagan Tokes Law
regarding indefinite sentencing for qualifying felonies is facially unconstitutional,
that it violates the separation of powers doctrine, and that it violates Gossman’s right
to due process.
Standard of Review
{¶5} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence
“only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not
support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is
otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002,
¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that “ ‘which will produce in the mind of the
-3- Case No. 7-21-01
trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’ ”
Id. at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of
the syllabus.
Analysis
{¶6} Although we generally review sentencing determinations under the
standard set forth above, the constitutionality of a statute presents a question of law
we review de novo. Hayslip v. Hanshaw, 4th Dist. Highland No. 15CA20, 2016-
Ohio-3339, ¶ 27. Importantly, however, “[i]t is well settled that this court will not
reach constitutional issues unless absolutely necessary.” State v. Talty, 103 Ohio
St.3d 177, 2004-Ohio-4888, ¶ 9. To determine the necessity of a constitutional
analysis we must first decide whether the issue is ripe for review. State v. Ramey,
4th Dist. Washington No. 20CA1, 2020-Ohio-6733, ¶ 13.
{¶7} After reviewing the record and the applicable legal authority, we find
there are a number of issues in this case that prevent Gossman’s arguments against
“Reagan Tokes” from being ripe for review. First and foremost, Gossman’s prison
sentence has not been imposed; rather, he has been placed on community control.
Thus Gossman has not actually been sentenced to an “indefinite prison term” for a
“qualifying offense” under Reagan Tokes that would even potentially invoke his
arguments regarding facial constitutionality of the Regan Tokes Law, due process,
or separation of powers.
-4- Case No. 7-21-01
{¶8} At this point, Gossman has only been notified that if he violates his
community control, and if the trial court elects to revoke his community control, he
will only then be subject to the reserved indefinite prison term for his qualifying
offense.2 “Ohio appellate courts have consistently held that ‘an appeal of a reserved
sentence of imprisonment that is part of a sentence of community control is not ripe
until an actual sentencing order imposes the prison term for community control
violation.’ ” State v. Daniel, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2014-T-0044, 2015-Ohio-
3826, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Poppe, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2–06–23, 2007–Ohio–688,
¶ 14; see also State v. McNeil, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2018-09-115, 2019-Ohio-
1200, ¶ 20 (holding that consecutive sentence findings were not ripe for appeal when
appellant had been placed on community control and not sentenced to prison). In
this case, there is no guarantee that Gossman will ever be sentenced to the reserved
prison term, thus his constitutionality arguments are not ripe for appeal.
{¶9} Second, we note that even if we assumed that the Reagan Tokes Law
impacted Gossman despite his actual sentence to community control, some Ohio
appellate courts have determined that certain “constitutional challenges to the
Reagan Tokes Law are not yet ripe for review because the appellant has not yet been
subject to the application of those provisions.” Ramey, supra, at ¶ 15. Rather, these
2 “[T]he notice does little more than set a ceiling on the potential prison term, leaving the court with the discretion to impose a lesser term than the offender was notified of when a lesser term is appropriate.” State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, ¶ 23.
-5- Case No. 7-21-01
courts have held that, “the appropriate method to challenge the constitutionality of
the Reagan Tokes Law is by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus if the
defendant is not released at the conclusion of the minimum term of incarceration.”
Id. citing State v. Downard, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2019-0079, 2020-Ohio-
4227, ¶ 7-12; State v. Kepling, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-20-23, 2020-Ohio-6888, ¶
15 (finding certain arguments regarding Reagan Tokes not to be ripe for appeal). In
other words, Gossman would need to challenge the indefinite portion of his
sentence, if and when it was actually invoked, not at the trial court’s reservation of
a prison term.
{¶10} We are aware that issues regarding the constitutionality of the Reagan
Tokes Law are pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio, including whether the
challenges are ripe for review.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Gossman, 2021-Ohio-1928.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HENRY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 7-21-01
v.
ERIC D. GOSSMAN, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Henry County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 20 CR 0086
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: June 7, 2021
APPEARANCES:
Autumn D. Adams for Appellant Case No. 7-21-01
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Eric D. Gossman (“Gossman”), brings this appeal
from the December 9, 2020 judgment of the Henry County Common Pleas Court
sentencing him to five years of community control after Gossman pled guilty to, and
was convicted of, Felonious Assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a first
degree felony. On appeal, Gossman argues that, even though he was placed on
community control, the indefinite prison term that was reserved by the trial court to
be imposed in the event that Gossman’s community control was revoked was
unconstitutional.
Background
{¶2} On August 26, 2020, Gossman was indicted for Aggravated Menacing
in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A), a first degree misdemeanor, Felonious Assault in
violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a first degree felony, and Assault on a Police
Officer in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), a fourth degree felony. Pursuant to a
written negotiated agreement, Gossman pled guilty to Felonious Assault as indicted,
and, in exchange for his guilty plea, the remaining charges were dismissed. Further,
the state agreed that it would not object to the trial court “overcoming the
presumption for prison” and imposing a sentence of community control.1
1 It was evident that Gossman was in favor of the state’s recommended sentence; however, it was not officially an “agreed sentencing recommendation.”
-2- Case No. 7-21-01
{¶3} After a pre-sentence investigation was conducted, Gossman was
sentenced to serve five years of community control as recommended by the state.
He was then notified that if he violated his community control, and if his community
control was revoked, he would be sentenced to four years in prison, with a maximum
indefinite prison term of six years. A judgment entry memorializing Gossman’s
sentence was filed December 9, 2020. It is from this judgment that he appeals,
asserting the following assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error 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 [in] ODRC’s custody.
{¶4} In his assignment of error, Gossman argues that the Reagan Tokes Law
regarding indefinite sentencing for qualifying felonies is facially unconstitutional,
that it violates the separation of powers doctrine, and that it violates Gossman’s right
to due process.
Standard of Review
{¶5} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence
“only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not
support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is
otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002,
¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that “ ‘which will produce in the mind of the
-3- Case No. 7-21-01
trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’ ”
Id. at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of
the syllabus.
Analysis
{¶6} Although we generally review sentencing determinations under the
standard set forth above, the constitutionality of a statute presents a question of law
we review de novo. Hayslip v. Hanshaw, 4th Dist. Highland No. 15CA20, 2016-
Ohio-3339, ¶ 27. Importantly, however, “[i]t is well settled that this court will not
reach constitutional issues unless absolutely necessary.” State v. Talty, 103 Ohio
St.3d 177, 2004-Ohio-4888, ¶ 9. To determine the necessity of a constitutional
analysis we must first decide whether the issue is ripe for review. State v. Ramey,
4th Dist. Washington No. 20CA1, 2020-Ohio-6733, ¶ 13.
{¶7} After reviewing the record and the applicable legal authority, we find
there are a number of issues in this case that prevent Gossman’s arguments against
“Reagan Tokes” from being ripe for review. First and foremost, Gossman’s prison
sentence has not been imposed; rather, he has been placed on community control.
Thus Gossman has not actually been sentenced to an “indefinite prison term” for a
“qualifying offense” under Reagan Tokes that would even potentially invoke his
arguments regarding facial constitutionality of the Regan Tokes Law, due process,
or separation of powers.
-4- Case No. 7-21-01
{¶8} At this point, Gossman has only been notified that if he violates his
community control, and if the trial court elects to revoke his community control, he
will only then be subject to the reserved indefinite prison term for his qualifying
offense.2 “Ohio appellate courts have consistently held that ‘an appeal of a reserved
sentence of imprisonment that is part of a sentence of community control is not ripe
until an actual sentencing order imposes the prison term for community control
violation.’ ” State v. Daniel, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2014-T-0044, 2015-Ohio-
3826, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Poppe, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2–06–23, 2007–Ohio–688,
¶ 14; see also State v. McNeil, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2018-09-115, 2019-Ohio-
1200, ¶ 20 (holding that consecutive sentence findings were not ripe for appeal when
appellant had been placed on community control and not sentenced to prison). In
this case, there is no guarantee that Gossman will ever be sentenced to the reserved
prison term, thus his constitutionality arguments are not ripe for appeal.
{¶9} Second, we note that even if we assumed that the Reagan Tokes Law
impacted Gossman despite his actual sentence to community control, some Ohio
appellate courts have determined that certain “constitutional challenges to the
Reagan Tokes Law are not yet ripe for review because the appellant has not yet been
subject to the application of those provisions.” Ramey, supra, at ¶ 15. Rather, these
2 “[T]he notice does little more than set a ceiling on the potential prison term, leaving the court with the discretion to impose a lesser term than the offender was notified of when a lesser term is appropriate.” State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, ¶ 23.
-5- Case No. 7-21-01
courts have held that, “the appropriate method to challenge the constitutionality of
the Reagan Tokes Law is by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus if the
defendant is not released at the conclusion of the minimum term of incarceration.”
Id. citing State v. Downard, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2019-0079, 2020-Ohio-
4227, ¶ 7-12; State v. Kepling, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-20-23, 2020-Ohio-6888, ¶
15 (finding certain arguments regarding Reagan Tokes not to be ripe for appeal). In
other words, Gossman would need to challenge the indefinite portion of his
sentence, if and when it was actually invoked, not at the trial court’s reservation of
a prison term.
{¶10} We are aware that issues regarding the constitutionality of the Reagan
Tokes Law are pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio, including whether the
challenges are ripe for review. See State v. Maddox, Sup Ct. Case No. 2020-1266
(being heard June 29, 2021). However, even if the Supreme Court of Ohio
determined that Reagan Tokes challenges were ripe for review at the time a prison
sentence is initially imposed, the issue before us still would not be ripe because a
prison term has not been imposed in this case.
{¶11} Furthermore, notwithstanding ripeness issues, we have already
reviewed and rejected a similar constitutional challenge to Reagan Tokes under a
separation of powers argument and under a challenge that Reagan Tokes lacked
certain procedural safeguards. See State v. Hacker, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-20-01,
-6- Case No. 7-21-01
2020-Ohio-5048. Thus were we to reach the constitutional issues in the case before
us, we decline to depart from our recent prior precedent to the extent it is applicable.
{¶12} Finally, we note that even if the issues in this case had been ripe for
review, and even if they survived our prior precedent overruling some similar
arguments, Gossman failed to raise his constitutional challenge at the trial court
level. Some Ohio appellate courts—including this Court—have declined to review
constitutional challenges to Reagan Tokes when the issue was not raised at the trial
court level. See State v. Ramey, 4th Dist. Washington No. 20CA1, 2020-Ohio-6733,
¶ 14, citing State v. Young, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108868, 2020-Ohio-4135, ¶ 21
(“Young failed to raise a constitutional challenge to the Reagan Tokes Act in the
trial court, and we decline to address the issue for the first time on appeal.”); Hacker,
supra, at ¶ 17. For all of these reasons Gossman’s assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶13} For the foregoing reasons the assignment of error is overruled and the
judgment of the Henry County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-7-