State v. Bohannon
2013 Ohio 5101
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Jeremy Bohannon was convicted of having weapons while under a disability (third-degree felony) and placed on three years' community control.
- At original sentencing the court warned it would revoke community control for the slightest infraction and impose a five-year prison term upon violation.
- Bohannon was later accused of multiple community-control violations (missed drug screen, leaving Ohio and criminal arrest in Kentucky, failing to report, and not paying court costs).
- He pleaded guilty to the violation and the trial court revoked community control and sentenced him to 30 months' imprisonment.
- The sentencing entry included postrelease-control language, but the trial court did not orally notify Bohannon of postrelease control at the sentencing hearing.
- Bohannon appealed, challenging (1) the court’s consideration of mitigating factors and (2) the lack of oral postrelease-control notification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.12(C)(4) mitigating grounds when imposing sentence after revocation | State: Trial court complied with sentencing statutes and considered relevant factors; sentence within statutory range | Bohannon: Court did not address substantial grounds to mitigate, so sentencing was unsupported | Court: Overruled — record does not show failure to consider mitigation; sentence lawful and within range |
| Whether court erred by not orally notifying defendant of postrelease control at sentencing | State: Judgment entry included postrelease control (no argument preserved) | Bohannon: Court failed to advise him at the hearing; postrelease-control portion of sentence void | Court: Sustained — vacated postrelease-control portion and remanded for R.C. 2929.191 correction procedures (no de novo resentencing) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 (2004) (trial court sentences anew after community-control revocation and must follow sentencing statutes)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (sentencing court must advise offender at hearing that postrelease control may apply)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (failure to orally notify of postrelease control renders that part of the sentence void)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009) (when postrelease-control notice is defective for sentences after R.C. 2929.191 effective date, correction follows R.C. 2929.191 procedures rather than de novo resentencing)