High court hears Tokes oral arguments
Jan. 14—COLUMBUS — The cases of two inmates who are challenging the power of corrections officials to extend their sentences under the Reagan Tokes Act were heard earlier this week by the Ohio Supreme Court.
According to the Supreme Court's website, in 2021 the court accepted the appeals of Christopher Hacker of Logan County and Danan Simmons Jr. of Cuyahoga County, but held the cases for a decision in the case of State v. Maddox. The court's Maddox decision in March 2022 permitted offenders to appeal sentences imposed under the Tokes Act before the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction requests an extension of the minimum sentence.
Following the ruling, Hacker's and Simmons' cases moved forward on the high court's docket. The court currently is holding more than 60 cases for decisions in these two cases.
Original ruling and appeal
In 2019, Hacker pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary. He received a six-to-nine-year prison sentence on the burglary charge. The Third District Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the sentence.
Simmons was sentenced in Cuyahoga County to five years for having a weapon illegally, drug trafficking and drug possession. The trial court didn't sentence Simmons to a range of years under the Tokes Act, concluding that the law is unconstitutional. However, the Eighth District Court of Appeals overturned the ruling and ordered the case back to the trial court for resentencing.
Hacker argues the law infringes on the separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches because the DRC, instead of the courts, decides the length of an offender's sentence. Simmons agrees, contending that the DRC is acting unconstitutionally as prosecutor, judge and jury when seeking to keep offenders in prison. Hacker and Simmons maintain that the agency extends sentences based on events and facts not considered by a judge.
AG's office defends law as written
The court's website says the Ohio Attorney General's Office and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office argue the power to sentence offenders remains with the judiciary under Reagan Tokes. The executive branch decides an offender's release date within the indefinite sentencing range imposed by the trial court, they maintain. They argue these distinct responsibilities don't violate the separation of powers.
They also assert that DRC rules explain improper conduct and its consequences, giving offenders adequate notice of the actions that could lead to a longer prison sentence within a sentencing range.
