State v. Baker
2012 Ohio 5645
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Timothy Baker pleaded guilty to four counts of burglary and received a 12-year prison term plus five years of post-release control.
- After serving his term, Baker violated post-release control and was returned to prison.
- Baker moved to vacate the post-release-control sanction, contending the post-release-control term was void because burglary is a second-degree felony with a three-year term.
- The trial court denied the motion, holding that the sentencing entry placed Baker on notice of post-release control despite the incorrect term.
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding the post-release-control portion of the sentence void and vacating sanctions for post-release-control violations.
- The court concluded Baker was not subject to post-release control after release due to the void term and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-release-control term was void for being the wrong length | Baker argues five years is excessive for a second-degree felony. | State contends the term was valid via notice and, despite excess, preserved authority to sanction violations. | Post-release-control term void; cannot sanction violations. |
| Proper remedy when post-release control is void | Baker seeks termination of post-release control and related sanctions. | State argues termination is inappropriate absent improper notification or language in the entry. | Judgment vacated; post-release control and sanctions vacated; remand proper. |
| Effect of in-court notification versus sentencing-entry language | Becker argues lack of proper notification invalidates control. | State asserts proper in-court notification coupled with sufficient entry language suffices. | In-court notice is most important; entry can be corrected or deemed sufficient if properly noticed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (void sentence without statutorily mandated post-release term; reviewable on appeal or collateral attack)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (judgment void when post-release-control term improper; consequences explained)
- State v. Lynch, 9th Dist. No. 11CA010031 (2012-Ohio-2975) (focus on in-court notification and language in sentencing entry)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012-Ohio-1111) (emphasizes necessity of statutorily compliant notification at sentencing)
- Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 (2006-Ohio-126) (post-release-control issues discussed in framework of notification)