2018 Ohio 3576
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2009 William J. Bell was indicted on multiple felonies including two felonious assault convictions and one domestic violence conviction; he pleaded guilty in 2010.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of 4 years and 11 months and orally advised Bell of a mandatory three-year period of postrelease control at sentencing.
- The written guilty-plea forms and sentencing entries (May 27, 2010 and amended Sept. 19, 2011) stated Bell would receive three years of postrelease control and described consequences for violation but did not cite R.C. 2967.28 or expressly name the Adult Parole Authority.
- Bell filed a motion in June 2017 to vacate postrelease control, arguing the sentencing entry failed to comply with the requirements articulated in State v. Grimes.
- The trial court denied the motion; Bell appealed the denial to the Tenth District Court of Appeals.
- The Tenth District found oral advisements were correct but the written judgment entry failed to satisfy Grimes because it did not reference R.C. 2967.28 or expressly state APA administration and statutory consequences; the court remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the deficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing entry properly incorporated postrelease-control notice under Grimes | Entry was sufficient because it informed Bell of three years and described violation consequences | Entry was deficient for failing to reference R.C. 2967.28 or the APA/Parole Board as required by Grimes | The entry was deficient; oral advisement was correct but written entry must be amended via nunc pro tunc to comply with Grimes |
| Appropriate remedy for a Grimes incorporation defect | Uphold sentence; no relief beyond existing sentence | Vacate postrelease control or otherwise correct the sentence | Remedy is limited: issue a nunc pro tunc entry to correct the judgment entry (not release) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (2017) (sets minimum content a sentencing entry must contain to validly incorporate postrelease control)
- State v. Billiter, 134 Ohio St.3d 103 (2012) (discusses postrelease-control notice requirements)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (requires notice of details and consequences of postrelease control at sentencing)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (holds trial courts have statutory duty to provide postrelease-control notice at sentencing)