Opinion
9-22-64 9-22-65
06-29-2023
STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JAMES SKAGGS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JAMES SKAGGS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Joel M. Spitzer for Appellant Raymond A. Grogan, Jr. for Appellee
Appeals from Marion County Common Pleas Court Trial Court Nos. 21-CR-316 and 22-CR-336
Appeal Dismissed in Case No. 9-22-64 and Judgment Affirmed in Case No. 9-22-65
Joel M. Spitzer for Appellant
Raymond A. Grogan, Jr. for Appellee
OPINION
ZIMMERMAN, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, James Skaggs ("Skaggs"), appeals the October 18, 2022 judgment entries of sentencing of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.
{¶2} On July 28, 2021, Skaggs was indicted by the Marion County Grand Jury (in case number 2021 CR 0316 ("2021 case")) in Count One for corrupting another with drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.02(A)(2), a second-degree felony; Count Two for corrupting another with drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.02(A)(3), a second-degree felony; Counts Three and Four for involuntary manslaughter in violation of R.C. 2903.04(A), both first-degree felonies; and Count Five for trafficking in fentanyl in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), (C)(9), a fifth-degree felony. On August 2, 2021, Skaggs appeared for his arraignment and entered not-guilty pleas to all the criminal charges in the indictment.
Skaggs was under community-control sanctions (in Richland County in case number 21CR407 as a result of an aggravated-trafficking-in-drugs conviction) at the time he was alleged to have committed the offenses.
{¶3} On June 8, 2022, the Marion County Grand Jury indicted Skaggs (in case number 2022 CR 0336 ("2022 case")) on: Counts One, Two and Three, of grand theft when the property is a firearm or dangerous ordinance in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), (B)(4), third-degree felonies and Count Four, of petty theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), (B)(2), a first-degree misdemeanor. On June 10, 2022, Skaggs appeared personally for his arraignment and entered pleas of not guilty.
{¶4} On September 2, 2022, Skaggs withdrew his pleas of not guilty and entered guilty pleas, under a negotiated-plea agreement, to an amended indictment (in his 2022 case) and to Count Three of the indictment (in 2021 case). Specifically, in exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed (in his 2022 case) to amend Count One to the stipulated lesser included offense of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a fifth-degree felony, and to dismiss all remaining counts. In exchange for his guilty plea to Count Three (involuntary manslaughter) of the indictment (in his 2021), the State agreed to dismiss all remaining counts and to stand silent at sentencing.
{¶5} The trial court accepted Skaggs's guilty pleas and dismissed Counts Two, Three, and Four (in his 2022 case) and dismissed Counts One, Two, Four, and Five (in his 2021 case).
{¶6} On October 18, 2022, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and sentenced Skaggs (in his 2021 case) for involuntary manslaughter to an indefinite prison term of a minimum term of 10 years to a maximum term of 15 years and (in his 2022 case) for theft to six months in prison to be served consecutive to the prison term in his 2021 case for an aggregate sentence of 10 ½ years to 15 ½ years.
{¶7} Skaggs filed timely appeals that we have consolidated for our review. He raises two assignments of error, which we will review together.
Appeal 9-22-64
{¶8} However, before we address the merits of Skaggs's appeals, we note that Skaggs (in his brief) does not present any argument challenging the sentence imposed in his 2022 case. Rather, his assignments of error only challenge the sentence imposed in his 2021 case. Since there are no issues raised or error assigned below in appellate case number 9-22-64, that appeal must be dismissed. See State v. Taylor, 3d Dist. Seneca Nos. 13-19-21 and 13-19-22, 2019-Ohio-4719, ¶ 8. Therefore, we will only consider Skaggs's assignments of error as it pertains to appellate case number 9-22-65.
Appeal 9-22-65
First Assignment of Error
The Trial Court abused its discretion by imposing a prison sentence contrary to R.C. 2929.11 and the purposes and principles of the felony sentencing guidelines.
Second Assignment of Error
The indefinite sentence ordered, of eight (8) to eleven (11) year in prison, by the trial court under S.B. 201, under the "Reagan Tokes Law" is unconstitutional because it is a violation of Appellant's due process rights under Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
{¶9} In his assignments of error, Skaggs argues that his sentence is contrary to law and that the indefinite sentence (i.e., Reagan Tokes Law) of incarceration imposed for involuntary manslaughter is unconstitutional. Specifically, Skaggs asserts that the trial court should have placed him on community-control sanctions and that the provisions of Reagan Tokes Law infringe on his right to due process.
Analysis
{¶10} We begin by addressing Skaggs's argument that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence that is contrary to R.C. 2929.11 and the purposes and principles of the felony sentencing guidelines.
{¶11} R.C. 2953.08 specifies the grounds upon which a defendant convicted of a felony may appeal a sentence as a matter of right. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may 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.
Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b),
'[a] sentence is contrary to law when it does not fall within the statutory range for the offense or if the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in RC. 2929.12.'(Emphasis added.) State v. Miller, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-20-14, 2021-Ohio-640, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Dorsey, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28747, 2021-Ohio-76, ¶ 18, citing State v. Brown, 2d Dist. No. 2016-CA-53, 2017-Ohio-8416, ¶ 74 and State v. D-Bey, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109000, 2021-Ohio-60, ¶ 65.
{¶12} Here, Skaggs's argues that the record does not support that the trial court considered all the purposes and principles of sentencing. Put more plainly-Skaggs asserts that the trial court should have been more focused on rehabilitation of Skaggs and should have used the minimum sanction to accomplish that purpose, rather than, imprisonment.
{¶13} "Trial courts have full discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory range." State v. Noble, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-14-06, 2014-Ohio-5485, ¶ 9. Any sentence imposed within the statutory range is not contrary to law as long as the trial court considers the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. State v. Silfe, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-20-17, 2021-Ohio-644, ¶ 10. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that R.C. 2353.08(G)(2)(b) "does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12." State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. The Supreme Court further held that we err if we modify or vacate a sentence "based on the lack of support in the record for the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12." Id. at ¶ 29.
{¶14} Since the record demonstrates that Skaggs's sentence falls within the statutory range for involuntary manslaughter, and because the trial court considered the applicable statutes, the sentence is presumptively valid. This court has no authority to modify or vacate the sentence based upon a claim that the sentence is not supported by the record. Thus, we will not conclude that Skagg's sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. See State v. Foster, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-20-17, 2021-Ohio-3408, ¶ 39.
{¶15} Next, we address Skaggs's argument related to the Reagan Tokes Law. Notably, Skaggs did raise an objection to the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law at his sentencing hearing. Thus, he has preserved this issue for our review. As we 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 Law do not 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. Thus, on the basis of Ball and our prior precedent, we find no merit to Skaggs's arguments.
{¶16} Accordingly, Skaggs's first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶17} For the reasons stated above, we dismiss appellant's appeal related to appellate case number 9-22-64. Further, having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars assigned and argued in appellate case number 9-22-65, affirm the judgment of the trial court in that cause.
Appeal Dismissed in 9-22-64 and Judgment Affirmed in 9-22-65
WILLAMOWSKI and WALDICK, J.J., concur.