State v. Bond
2023 Ohio 3996
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Doshie G. Bond was convicted by a jury of felonious assault for a 2021 store assault and sentenced to an indefinite prison term of 8–12 years.
- On direct appeal the court affirmed the conviction but found the trial court failed to provide Reagan Tokes Act sentencing notices (R.C. 2967.271), reversed only the sentence, and remanded for resentencing to give the required notifications.
- Before the remand resentencing, Bond’s appellate counsel moved to withdraw and requested appointment of new counsel; that motion was pending when the trial court held the resentencing hearing via video conference on May 10, 2023.
- Bond was unrepresented at the May 10 resentencing; the trial court thereafter entered judgment and Bond timely filed a pro se appeal.
- The appellate court held (1) the trial court erred by proceeding with resentencing without defense counsel and remanded for resentencing with counsel present; (2) Bond’s additional constitutional and sentencing challenges were barred by res judicata; and (3) the trial court’s failure to advise Bond of appellate rights at the resentencing was harmless because Bond filed a timely notice of appeal and appellate counsel was appointed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to counsel at resentencing | State concedes error; remand to allow counsel at resentencing | Bond: proceeding without counsel violated Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and Ohio Constitution | Resentencing hearing conducted without counsel was error; reverse and remand for resentencing with counsel present |
| Reagan Tokes Act constitutionality / notice conflict | State: issue was not raised on direct appeal and is barred | Bond: Reagan Tokes conflicts with due process and is unconstitutional | Barred by res judicata; assignment overruled |
| Failure to advise of appellate rights (Crim.R. 32) | State: omission was harmless because Bond filed timely appeal and was appointed counsel | Bond: trial court violated his due-process rights by not advising appellate rights | Harmless error given timely notice of appeal and appointment of counsel; assignment overruled |
| Sentence consistency / maximum term legality under R.C. 2929.11 | State: issue could have been raised earlier and is barred | Bond: 8–12 term violates sentencing consistency requirements | Barred by res judicata; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (presence of counsel required at critical stages where absence may derogate right to a fair trial)
- Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (sentencing is a critical stage implicating procedural protections)
- State v. Schleiger, 141 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio Supreme Court: resentencing for limited purpose is a critical stage)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (res judicata bars raising issues on collateral review that could have been raised on direct appeal)