State v. Adams
2012 Ohio 432
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2012Background
- State files timely reconsideration of the appellate court's December 9, 2011 Adams decision seeking a different remedy alignment with Davis.
- Adams was sentenced after July 11, 2006, and Foster de novo resentencing occurred on October 20, 2006.
- This court held that R.C. 2929.191(C) requires a limited resentencing hearing, potentially via videoconferencing, before corrections to judgment are issued.
- Singleton limits retroactive application of R.C. 2929.191 to post-July 11, 2006 sentences for proper post-release-control correction.
- The court explains the correct application of R.C. 2929.191(C) to Adams and denies the reconsideration petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration remedies conflict with Davis | State argues Adams remedy conflicts with Davis | Adams argues no conflict; timely reconsideration should stand | No conflict; reconsideration denied for this issue |
| Whether R.C. 2929.191(C) applies to Adams for correction | Davis/Fischer retroactivity support applying the remedy | Singleton controls; Adams postdates July 11, 2006 and requires §2929.191(C) | R.C. 2929.191(C) applies to Adams |
| Whether Adams required a limited resentencing hearing under §2929.191(C) | Hearing is unnecessary given prior sentencing | Statutory hearing required before correction entry | Limited resentencing hearing required |
| Whether videoconferencing suffices for the hearing | Videoconference not discussed as option for hearing | Statute permits video appearance if available | Video-conferencing may be used for the hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (retrospective limits on post-release-control corrections)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (establishes de novo resentencing framework)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (limits retrospective application of §2929.191)
- Juhasz v. Costanzo, 7th Dist. No. 99CA294 (2002-Ohio-553) (standard for reconsideration motions)
- Scott v. Falcon Transport Co., 7th Dist. No. 02CA145 (2004-Ohio-389) (reconsideration rarely granted on mere disagreement)
- Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d 334 (11th Dist.1996) (reconsideration concept and miscarriage of justice)
- State v. Craddock, 2010-Ohio-5782 (8th Dist. No. 94387) (foster-resend sentencing context cited)