State v. Hartfield

2023 Ohio 1260

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 18, 2023
• Docket: 22 CA 00082
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Hartfield, 2023-Ohio-1260.]

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : Hon. Andrew J. King, J. -vs- : : DOUGLAS R. HARTFIELD : Case No. 22 CA 00082 : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 19-CR-470

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 18, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

KENNETH W. OSWALT WILLIAM T. CRAMER 20 South Second Street 470 Olde Worthington Road Fourth Floor Suite 200 Newark, OH 43055 Westerville, OH 43082 Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00082 2

King, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Douglas Hartfield appeals the judgment of the Licking

County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of one count of rape and one count of

sexual battery and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of incarceration of six to nine

years. Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of Ohio.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} A recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary to our resolution of this

appeal.

{¶ 3} Hartfield was indicted on two counts of rape and one count of sexual battery.

Following a jury trial Hartfield was found guilty of one count of rape and one count of

sexual battery. The trial court proceeded directly to sentencing and imposed an

indeterminate prison term of six to nine years for rape, and a concurrent term of 36 months

for sexual battery.

{¶ 4} Hartfield timely appealed and argued in part that the rape and sexual battery

counts should have merged for sentencing and his indeterminate sentence imposed

pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act, is unconstitutional. State v. Hartfield, 5th Dist. Licking

No. 2021 CA 0030, 2022-Ohio-2243 ¶¶ 49-55, 57-59.

{¶ 5} Upon review, we concluded rape and sexual battery under the facts of this

case were allied offenses which should have been merged. We further found that the trial

court committed plain error in failing to merge the offenses for sentencing and remanded

the matter for resentencing. Id. ¶ 55. Hartfield also challenged the constitutionality of the Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00082 3

Reagan Tokes Act on the same grounds he raises in this appeal. We denied Hartfield's

Reagan Tokes challenge, Id. ¶¶ 57-59.1

{¶ 6} On remand, the state elected to proceed to sentencing on Hartfield's rape

conviction and the trial court imposed the same indeterminate sentence of six to nine

years.

{¶ 7} Hartfield filed an appeal, and the matter is now before this court for review.

He raises one assignment of error as follows:

I

{¶ 8} "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."

{¶ 9} In his sole assignment of error, Hartfield again challenges the

constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Act. Hartfield advances the same arguments here

as he did in his first appeal: the act violates his constitutional rights to trial by jury, equal

protection and due process of law, and further violates the constitutional requirement of

separation of powers by permitting the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

to potentially add additional time to appellant's sentence based upon his behavior in the

institution.

{¶ 10} As discussed above, we have previously addressed Hartfield's Reagan

Tokes Challenge. "Res judicata may be applied to bar further litigation of issues that were

1 We note the state's brief asserts we found Hartfield's Reagan Tokes Act challenge moot because we remanded the matter for resentencing. State's brief at 1. That is inaccurate. We found Hartfield's ineffective assistance of counsel claims as they related to sentencing were moot because we remanded the matter for resentencing. Licking County, Case No. 22 CA 00082 4

raised previously or could have been raised previously in an appeal." State v. Houston,

73 Ohio St.3d 346, 347, 652 N.E.2d 1018 (1995). Hartfield's issue has been "raised

previously" in an appeal, and we fully addressed and decided that issue. It is now res

judicata. Accordingly, we reject Hartfield's sole assignment of error.

{¶ 11} The Judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By King, J.,

Gwin, P.J. and

Delaney, J. concur.

AJK/rw [Cite as State v. Hartfield, 2023-Ohio-1260.]