2020 Ohio 6817
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Lorenza Barnette was convicted by jury of two counts of aggravated murder, two counts of kidnapping, and arson; sentenced to consecutive terms including life without parole for the murders and 10 years for each kidnapping.
- The original sentencing entry failed to include a mandatory five-year period of post-release control (PRC) for the kidnapping counts.
- The trial court sua sponte scheduled and held an April 30, 2019 hearing and then imposed the five-year PRC; the court’s entry described the hearing as a "resentencing."
- Barnette appealed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify its final judgment and that the court exceeded its statutory authority by conducting a broader resentencing instead of a limited PRC correction hearing.
- The Seventh District held the trial court was authorized to correct a judgment to add PRC while the defendant remained incarcerated (R.C. 2929.191), but concluded the court exceeded that narrow authority by conducting a resentencing-style hearing and considering full sentencing factors; it reversed, vacated, and remanded for a limited PRC-notification hearing under R.C. 2929.191.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction/authority to modify the final sentence to add post-release control | State: Court may correct a judgment to add PRC while offender remains incarcerated under R.C. 2929.191 | Barnette: Court lacked authority to sua sponte resentence; Harper bars altering a final sentence and court exceeded R.C. 2929.191’s narrow scope | Court: Statute authorized a limited PRC correction while inmate remains incarcerated, but the trial court exceeded that authority by conducting a resentencing-style hearing; reversed and remanded for a statutory PRC hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (2017) (addressing whether failure to notify a defendant of post-release control renders that portion of a sentence void)
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008) (discussing res judicata and the limits on collateral attack where a judgment is voidable rather than void)