State v. Alhajjeh
2011 Ohio 2160
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Alhajjeh applied under App.R.26(B) to reopen the court’s judgment in 2010 on ineffective assistance grounds related to postrelease control.
- Applicant alleged appellate counsel failed to raise an error that postrelease-control sanctions were improperly imposed.
- Original sentence: murder 15 years to life; felonious assault 8 years merged; tampering with evidence 5 years, with postrelease control for counts 2 and 3.
- Trial court did not state that a violation of postrelease control could trigger a prison term up to one-half of the stated term.
- This court granted reopening, vacated the postrelease-control portion, and remanded for proper postrelease-control imposition consistent with controlling authority.
- Key authorities cited include Strickland, Singleton, and postrelease-control case law (Douglas, Wolford, Norris; Fischer; Street).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising postrelease-control error | Alhajjeh claims failure to raise error prejudiced the result. | State opposed reopening; no prejudice shown. | Reopening granted; ineffective-assistance issue viable. |
| Whether imposition of five years postrelease control on counts 2 and 3 was reversible error | Five-year postrelease-control term for non-sex, non-first-degree felonies is improper. | Postrelease-control imposition consistent with statute. | Imposition of five years was reversible error; remand for proper postrelease-control wording. |
| Whether the case should be remanded for resentencing on postrelease control | Resentencing necessary to correct postrelease-control terms. | Procedural corrections unnecessary if error not established. | Remand for proper postrelease-control imposition and resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Douglas, 2007-Ohio-2625 (Ohio) (reversible error for improper postrelease-control term; reopening authorized)
- State v. Wolford, 2010-Ohio-434 (Ohio) (postrelease-control issues on appeal; remedy discussed)
- State v. Norris, 2001-Ohio-1251 (Ohio) (postrelease-control considerations on appeal)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 2009) (necessary notice about possible prison term upon postrelease-control violation)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (reopening under 26(B) and proper postrelease-control formulation)
- State v. Street, 2005-Ohio-1976 (Ohio) (reopening considerations for postrelease-control issues)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (defining prejudice in ineffective-assistance claims)