State v. Bryant
2011 Ohio 3187
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Bryant was convicted by a Summit County jury of multiple felonies including two counts of aggravated murder with gun specifications and related offenses; aggregate sentence was 72 years to life.
- Post-appeal, this Court and the Ohio Supreme Court addressed remands/re-sentencing after Foster, with a focus on post-release control imposition.
- January 2, 2008 sentencing entry incorrectly stated post-release control; this Court later vacated that entry on November 12, 2009 and remanded for de novo resentencing.
- Bryant's February 12, 2010 resentencing resulted in a new 72-to-life term; Bryant filed a pro se motion regarding delay in sentencing.
- This appeal challenges (1) the resentencing procedure under Singleton and related authority, and (2) the asserted unreasonable delay in imposing a lawful sentence.
- The trial court conducted a de novo resentencing in 2010 after the void sentence was identified, and the court denied the delay-related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Bryant properly resentenced after the void sentence? | Bryant asserts de novo sentencing under Singleton was required. | Court followed proper procedures under applicable case law for void sentence correction. | Bryant's first assignment of error overruled. |
| Did the delay in imposing a lawful sentence violate Crim.R. 32(A) and due process? | Delay between conviction and lawful sentence violated Crim.R. 32(A) and due process. | Delay was due to appellate remand and ongoing proceedings; no unreasonable delay under controlling authority. | Bryant's second assignment of error overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (postrelease-control error corrected per de novo or 2929.191 depending on timing)
- State v. Benford, 2010-Ohio-54 (9th Dist. No. 24828) (law-of-the-case effect when sentence void; remand for correction)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006-Ohio-5795) (continuing jurisdiction to correct a void sentence)
- State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (1984) (continuing jurisdiction principle and void sentence framework)
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (2009-Ohio-2462) (void judgment and law-of-the-case concepts in sentencing)