History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Brister
2013 Ohio 5874
Ohio Ct. App.
2013
Read the full case

Background

  • Defendant-appellant Darrell Brister was convicted of murder with a firearm specification in 2004, and this conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal in 2005.
  • At sentencing in 2004, the trial court imposed a mandatory term of post-release control, which Brister later argued was improper because murder is an unclassified felony not subject to post-release control.
  • In 2013 Brister moved to correct a void sentence, arguing the post-release-control term should be deleted and sought a de novo sentencing hearing.
  • The trial court issued a nunc pro tunc judgment removing the post-release-control language but denied a de novo sentencing hearing.
  • Brister appealed the May 15, 2013 entries, and counsel moved to withdraw under Anders, filing a single proposed assignment of error with a coexisting pro se assignment.
  • The court affirmed the nunc pro tunc correction and held that a new trial was not required and a de novo sentencing hearing was unnecessary.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the trial court erred by removing post-release control via nunc pro tunc entry Brister contends the entire sentence is void and a new sentencing hearing was required Brister argues post-release-control removal should occur only via proper procedures or at a new sentencing hearing Post-release control was properly removed via nunc pro tunc entry; no de novo hearing required

Key Cases Cited

  • State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (post-release-control remedy limited to void only the control portion)
  • State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 2008) (post-release control not applicable to murder (unclassified felony))
  • State v. Gripper, 10th Dist. No. 10AP–1186, 2011–Ohio–3656 (Ohio 2011) (no de novo sentencing required when post-release-control language included in error)
  • State v. Silguero, 2011-Ohio-6293 (Ohio 2011) (nunc pro tunc deletion of post-release control affirmed)
  • State v. Rolling, 2011-Ohio-121 (Ohio 2011) (nunc pro tunc correction of judgments allowed to align with truth of record)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Brister
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Dec 17, 2013
Citation: 2013 Ohio 5874
Docket Number: 13 CA 21
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.