State v. Brown
2019 Ohio 1696
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2003 Frank C. Brown Jr. pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual battery and one count of rape; parties agreed to an aggregate 15‑year prison sentence.
- At the plea/sentencing hearing the trial court advised Brown that post‑release control (PRC) was mandatory for five years; Brown acknowledged and entered his plea.
- The written plea form and the judgment entry described PRC as “up to five (5) years” and stated it was mandatory, creating minor inconsistency in wording.
- Brown completed his prison term in October 2017 and was placed on five years of PRC by the parole authority.
- In February 2018 Brown moved to vacate PRC, claiming it was improperly imposed and that the State breached the plea agreement; the trial court denied the motion and Brown appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PRC was voidly imposed because the judgment entry said “up to” five years while the court announced mandatory five years at sentencing | The sentencing hearing—not the written entry—is controlling; Brown was informed PRC was mandatory and of the term, so the sentence is not void and must have been challenged on direct appeal | The discrepancy in the written judgment entry rendered the PRC improperly imposed and therefore void | Court: PRC was validly imposed because Brown was informed in open court PRC was mandatory for five years; failure to raise on direct appeal bars relief (res judicata) |
| Whether the State breached the plea agreement by correcting the judgment entry nunc pro tunc to reflect mandatory PRC | Nunc pro tunc correction merely makes the record reflect what the court actually announced at sentencing; Brown knew and agreed to mandatory PRC at the plea hearing | The nunc pro tunc alteration changed the plea agreement from “up to” five years to mandatory five years, breaching the contract | Court: No breach—plea agreements are contractual but can be modified by the court’s oral advisement that Brown accepted; nunc pro tunc correction properly conforming the record is permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Arnold v. Gallagher, 153 Ohio St.3d 234 (confirming trial courts retain jurisdiction to correct clerical errors by nunc pro tunc entry)
- State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303 (same principle regarding nunc pro tunc corrections)