State v. Adams
2011 Ohio 6428
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Adams, pro se, appeals a trial court’s March 31, 2011 judgment overruling his pro se Motion for Sentencing.
- Convictions: August 28, 2000 two counts of attempted murder with firearm specifications; Foster remand led to October 2006 resentencing.
- Appeals previously resolved; Foster remand later affirmed the 2006 resentencing but vacated the sentence.
- Issue: sentencing entry failed to state method of conviction and post-release control was silent.
- Post-release control imposition and Baker-compliant entry are required; retroactive application to 2000 conviction and 2006 Foster remand considered.
- Court held that Adams is entitled to a Baker-compliant corrected sentencing entry and a post-release control resentencing hearing under R.C. 2929.191(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing entry complies with Baker | Adams argues the entry lacks method of conviction | State contends correction via nunc pro tunc suffices | Partial merit; corrected entry required, no de novo hearing. |
| Whether post-release control was properly imposed | Adams contends be subject to post-release control was omitted | State concedes error; requires correction under R.C. 2929.191(C) | Merits in part; resentencing hearing required for post-release control and corrected entry. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (requires Crim.R.32(C) method-of-conviction disclosure; Baker framework for entry validity)
- State ex rel. DeWine, 128 Ohio St.3d 236 (2011) (nunc pro tunc correction when entry lacks conviction method)
- State v. Lester, Slip Op. No. 2011-Ohio-5204 (2011) (correction to judgment of conviction permitted via motion for correction)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009) (post-release control corrected under R.C. 2929.191 when not properly imposed)