• 2020-1243. State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414 (6th Dist.). • 2021-0001.

{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on remand from the Ohio Supreme Court, following reversal of our determination that the challenge to indefinite sentencing under R.C. 2967.271 (the "Reagan Tokes Law") is not ripe for review. See State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414, ¶ 10, motion to certify allowed, 161 Ohio St.3d 1415, 2021-Ohio-120, 161 N.E.3d 708, ¶ 10, and rev'd and remanded sub nom. In re Cases Held for the Decision in State v. Maddox, 2022-Ohio-1352, ¶ 10.

"However, if a defendant challenges the validity of the waiver, the state bears the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made." State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414, ¶ 19 (6th Dist), citing Wesson at ¶ 34. {¶ 74} The determination of whether a defendant's waiver satisfies the Miranda standard involves a two-step analysis:

We are aware that the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Districts found that separation of powers arguments and due process arguments that question the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law are not yet ripe for review. See State v. Ramey, 4th Dist. Washington Nos. 20CA1 and 20CA2, 2020-Ohio-6733, ¶ 22; State v. Downard, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2019-0079, 2020-Ohio-4227, ¶ 5, 12-13; State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414, ¶ 30 (6th Dist.); State v. Lavean, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-045, 2021-Ohio-1456, ¶ 12. We are also aware that, on December 28, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted a case to determine whether the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law is ripe for review.

State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414, ¶ 30 (6th Dist.).

ignments of error raising constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law as not ripe for review. See State v. Leak, 2021-Ohio-3139, ___ N.E.3d ___ (6th Dist); State v. Wheeler, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-21-019, 2021-Ohio-3062; State v. Cook, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1205, 2021-Ohio-2619; State v. Figley, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1167, 2021-Ohio-2622; State v. Stenson, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1074, 2021-Ohio-2256; State v. Zambrano, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1224, 2021-Ohio-1906; State v. Shepard, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1070, 2021-Ohio-1844; State v. Perry, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-025, 2021-Ohio-1748; State v. Savage, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1073, 2021-Ohio-1549; State v. Bothuel, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1053, 2021-Ohio-875; State v. Acosta, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-20-1068, L-20-1069, 2021-Ohio-757; State v. Sawyer, 2020-Ohio-6980, 165 N.E.3d 844 (6th Dist.); State v. Montgomery, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1202, 2020-Ohio-5552; State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414 (6th Dist.). {¶ 64} Consistent with the foregoing decisions, we find that appellant's second assignment of error is not ripe for review and is hereby dismissed.

Thus, we have dismissed such assignments of error as not ripe for review. See, e.g., State v. Maddox, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1167, 2020-Ohio-4702; State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414 (6th Dist); State v. Acosta, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-20-1068, L-20-1069, 2021-Ohio-757; State v. Wheeler, 6th Dist.

In support, we cited to: 3 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. Id.

Thus, we have dismissed such assignments of error as not ripe for review. See, e.g., State v. Maddox, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1167, 2020-Ohio-4702; State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414 (6th Dist); State v. Acosta, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-20-1068, L-20-1069, 2021-Ohio-757. Appellant's first assignment of error is dismissed as not ripe for review.

Thus, we have dismissed any such assignments of error as not ripe for review. See State v. Cook, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1205, 2021-Ohio-2619; State v. Figley, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1167, 2021-Ohio-2622; State v. Stenson, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1074, 2021-Ohio-2256; State v. Zambrano, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1224, 2021-Ohio-1906; State v. Shepard, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1070, 2021-Ohio-1844; State v. Perry, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-025, 2021-Ohio-1748; State v. Savage, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1073, 2021-Ohio-1549; State v. Acosta, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-20-1068, L-20-1069, 2021-Ohio-757; State v. Sawyer, 2020-Ohio-6980, 165 N.E.3d 844 (6th Dist.); State v. Montgomery, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1202, 2020-Ohio-5552; State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414 (6th Dist.). {¶ 7} Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is dismissed as not ripe for review.