State v. Adkins
2011 Ohio 2819
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Adkins pled guilty to multiple counts of rape in 2002 and received concurrent ten-year prison sentences.
- The trial court initially did not mention post-release control; the sentencing entry stated post-release control was mandatory up to five years.
- On remand for re-sentencing in 2003, Adkins received concurrent eight-year terms and was advised post-release control was mandatory up to five years.
- Adkins completed his prison term and was released in May 2010; the APA placed him on five years of post-release control.
- Adkins moved to vacate the void sentence and terminate post-release control in August 2010, arguing the language 'up to' rendered the control void and could not be corrected after completion of the prison term.
- The trial court denied relief, citing prior decisions; on appeal, the court held the 'up to' language rendered the post-release-control portion void and the defendant cannot be subjected to it after completing the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the 'up to' language render the post-release control void? | Adkins argues the phrase 'up to' five years voids the term. | State argues the period is valid under controlling precedent despite 'up to' phrasing. | Void post-release-control portion; invalid language defeats mandatory term. |
| May the trial court correct the void post-release-control term after the defendant has completed his sentence? | Adkins contends correction is unauthorized once term is completed. | State contends correction is permissible to satisfy statutory terms. | Correction not permitted; once completed, the voidness cannot be rectified. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010) (voidness of incorrect post-release-control sentences)
- State v. Conway, 2011-Ohio-24 (Court of Appeals of Ohio, 2011) (discrete void portion for 'up to' term; lack of clarity on effect)
- State v. Blackshear, 2011-Ohio-2059 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011) (voidness when post-release control terms are wrongly imposed)
- State v. Harrington, 2007-Ohio-1335 (Greene App. No. 06 CA 29, 2007) (earlier uncertainty about impact of 'up to' language)
- State v. Sulek, 2010-Ohio-3919 (Greene App. No. 09 CA 75, 2010) (misinforming about five years vs. three; not controlling for void analysis)
- State v. Simpkins, 2008-Ohio-1197 (Ohio) (voidness consideration when term completed)
- State v. Bloomer, 2009-Ohio-2462 (Ohio) (voidness considerations after completion of term)