State v. Brown
2015 Ohio 3912
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Jeffrey A. Brown was convicted in 2006 of multiple felonies and sentenced to an aggregate 19-year prison term; the written sentencing entry included a five-year term of post-release control (PRC) but the trial court did not orally state the PRC duration at sentencing.
- Brown appealed and pursued post-judgment motions; in State v. Brown (Brown I) this court held the failure to orally advise of PRC made only the PRC portion of the sentence void and remanded for limited resentencing to correct PRC.
- On July 11, 2014 the trial court held a limited resentencing to impose the mandatory five-year PRC; Brown appeared by video conference from prison and objected to not being physically present.
- The trial court issued an amended entry memorializing the five-year PRC and an order noting Brown was advised; Brown timely appealed the resentencing.
- The appellate court considered: (1) whether conducting the limited resentencing by video conference violated Crim.R. 43 or Brown’s rights; (2) whether the original March 9, 2006 sentencing entry was void in full; and (3) whether the trial court was required to hold a de novo resentencing rather than a limited correction of PRC.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Brown's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing by video conference violated Brown’s right to be present | Video appearance is authorized by R.C. 2929.191(C); video appearance has same force as physical presence and was properly used here | Crim.R. 43 requires physical presence; resentencing should not proceed without Brown physically present | No prejudice; video appearance permitted by statute; presence requirement satisfied; error (if any) harmless — assignment overruled |
| Whether the original March 9, 2006 sentencing entry was wholly void for failure to orally advise PRC | Only the PRC portion was void; remainder of judgment was final and subject to res judicata (per Brown I) | The entire sentencing entry was void because the five-year PRC was not pronounced in Brown’s presence | Res judicata bars relitigation; original entry not wholly void — assignment overruled |
| Whether the trial court was required to conduct a de novo resentencing rather than correct only PRC | Fischer and related precedent permit only correction of the void PRC; other aspects are final and not open to de novo review | Brown contends Supreme Court authority required de novo resentencing on all aspects | Court followed Fischer: limited correction of PRC only; no de novo hearing required — assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (2008) (defendant’s presence at critical stages is a fundamental right)
- State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 (2007) (absence does not automatically create prejudice; harmless-error framework)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (when PRC is improperly imposed, only that portion of sentence is void and subject to correction)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009) (overruled in part by Fischer regarding scope of resentencing)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934) (presence of defendant relates to due process)
- Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964) (limiting authority discussed in relation to prior cases)
- State v. Houston, 73 Ohio St.3d 346 (1995) (res judicata applies to bar relitigation of raised or raisable issues)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (classic Ohio res judicata precedent)