State v. Arszman
2014 Ohio 2727
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Toby Arszman pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition, R.C. 2907.05(A)(1), on January 30, 2013.
- The trial court sentenced Arszman to 17 months’ imprisonment and awarded 185 days’ jail credit.
- The court classified Arszman as a Tier II sex offender and imposed five years of postrelease control.
- Arszman appealed, arguing (1) sex-offender classification error and (2) improper postrelease-control notification.
- The state conceded the classification error; the court examined whether oral notification at sentencing sufficiently informed Arszman that five years of postrelease control was mandatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex-offender tier classification | State conceded error; classification should reflect statute | Arszman: required Tier I under R.C. definitions | Court: sustain error; remand to classify Arszman as Tier I |
| Postrelease-control notification | State: written entry correctly imposed mandatory 5-year term; oral imprecision harmless | Arszman: court failed to inform him that five years was mandatory at sentencing | Court: notification at hearing was insufficient; postrelease control vacated and remanded (dissent would have upheld) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010) (requires proper notification of postrelease control and identifies multiple errors that can render imposition invalid)
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (2009) (postrelease-control notice defective where oral and written notifications were inaccurate)
- Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 (2006) (objective of notification is to inform defendant of nature and duration of restrictions)
- State v. Duncan, 2013-Ohio-381 (1st Dist.) (interpreting Ketterer and Bloomer to require notification at sentencing and in judgment)