17AP-762
2018 Ohio 2529
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Andre D. Harper pled guilty in 2013 to third-degree robbery and received a three-year prison term plus a mandatory 3-year period of post-release control (PRC).
- At the plea/sentencing hearing Harper was orally informed of PRC and signed written forms describing PRC and its consequences.
- The trial court’s journal entry recited the three-year mandatory PRC but only referenced R.C. 2929.19(B)(3)(c)-(e) and did not state the consequences of violating PRC or cite R.C. 2967.28.
- Harper later moved (2017) to vacate PRC as void; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Tenth District held the judgment entry insufficient under State v. Grimes because it failed to incorporate in the journal the consequences for violating PRC and cited the wrong statutory subsection, and therefore remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the deficiency.
- The court concluded release was not warranted because the entry contained enough information (mandatory nature and duration) to allow the Adult Parole Authority to administer PRC after Harper completed his prison term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s journal entry properly incorporated PRC notice and consequences | State: Entry was sufficient because Harper received oral and written notice at sentencing and trial entry referenced PRC | Harper: Entry was void/insufficient because it failed to state PRC consequences and cited wrong statutory subsection, so PRC imposition is void and must be vacated | Entry was insufficient under Grimes; remanded for nunc pro tunc entry to add required language about APA administration and violation consequences |
| Whether Grimes should be applied to entries rendered before Grimes | State: Grimes should not be applied retroactively | Harper: Grimes (and the voidness doctrine) applies so the entry must be corrected now | Court applied Grimes principles (relying on Fischer line) and remanded for correction, treating the error as challengeable at any time |
| Whether Harper must be released because he completed his original sentence before correction | State: No release required; PRC could still be administered because entry stated mandatory term and duration and APA can act | Harper: Completed sentence, so PRC cannot now be reimposed; release or vacatur required | Court held release was not warranted; appropriate remedy is nunc pro tunc correction rather than release |
| Effect of the trial court citing wrong statutory subsection (2929.19(B)(3) vs (B)(2)) | State: Citation error immaterial where substance communicated | Harper: Citation error contributed to defective journalization | Court found miscitation one of several defects; overall entry failed to mention violation consequences and cited wrong division, requiring correction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2017) (sets minimal journal-entry requirements for postrelease control)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2004) (trial court must incorporate PRC notice into journal entry)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2012) (PRC notice must include details and consequences)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2010) (sentencing defects re: PRC can render parts of sentence void and open to collateral challenge)
- Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2006) (distinguishes when defective entries permit continued PRC administration)
- Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2006) (addresses effect of failure to include PRC in journal entry)