State v. Ball
2013 Ohio 3443
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Dontae Ball was convicted in 1999 in Franklin County of aggravated robbery (1st-degree) and received a 13-year term; the sentencing entry referenced post-release control and R.C. 2929.19(B)(3)(c)–(e).
- Ball was released from ODOC on December 24, 2011 and placed on five years of post-release control.
- In October 2012 Ball was indicted in Licking County for drug offenses; he pleaded guilty on February 26, 2013.
- At sentencing in the Licking County case the court imposed an aggregate sentence that included a four-year prison term as a collateral sanction for violating post-release control imposed in the Franklin County case.
- Ball moved to dismiss the post-release control sanctions (arguing the 1999 entry failed to adequately notify him), and appealed the 2013 sentence claiming (1) the PRC sanction was void and (2) the four-year term for PRC violation was excessive/incorrect under statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of prior post-release control notice | State: 1999 entry plus presumption of regularity shows defendant was orally notified at sentencing | Ball: 1999 entry did not adequately notify of PRC; thus PRC sanctions void | Court: Affirmed — entry language plus presumption of oral notice was sufficient to uphold PRC notice |
| Whether nunc pro tunc or new hearing required for PRC omission | State: where oral notice occurred, a nunc pro tunc correction suffices (per Qualls) | Ball: omission in journal could render sentence void and require de novo sentencing | Court: Followed Qualls — oral notice cures omission; no new hearing needed when oral notice presumed |
| Proper statutory maximum for prison term on PRC violation | State: R.C. 2929.141 governs; court relied on ODOC release date | Ball: Court failed to deduct time actually served under PRC when calculating maximum | Court: Reversed in part — remanded to determine time Ball actually spent under PRC and reduce the PRC-violation term accordingly |
| Sufficiency of record to challenge oral notification | State: absence of 1999 transcript creates presumption of regularity; defendant bears burden to produce transcript | Ball: transcript omission prevents proving inadequate oral notice | Held: Transcript absence favored presumption of proper oral notification; Ball’s challenge fails |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (if oral notice of post-release control was given at sentencing but omitted from the journal entry, the omission may be corrected by nunc pro tunc entry so long as correction occurs before completion of the prison term)
- State v. Hernandez, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (a sentencing entry that omits PRC notice may prevent imposition of PRC if not corrected before completion of sentence)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (failure to notify at sentencing but inclusion only in journal entry requires vacation of sentence and resentencing)
- Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (deficiencies in journal entries that reference PRC where oral notice occurred may be raised on appeal; oral notice satisfies purpose of notification)