2015 Ohio 3678
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2004 Bryant was convicted of aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and having a weapon while under disability and sentenced to nine years imprisonment with postrelease control (PRC) for five years.
- This court originally affirmed; the Ohio Supreme Court reversed and remanded for resentencing under State v. Foster.
- On resentencing in 2006 the trial court again imposed nine years and stated in the journal entry: “Postrelease control is part of this prison sentence for 5 years …” but did not set out the specific consequences for violating PRC.
- Bryant completed his prison term and later moved to correct a void sentence and terminate PRC, arguing the journal entry failed to state violation consequences and, having served the term, the trial court could no longer cure the defect.
- The trial court denied relief; on appeal this court considered whether PRC must be set out in the journal entry and whether PRC is void when the entry omits violation consequences and the defendant has completed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bryant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PRC must include the specific consequences for violations in the journal entry to be valid | The journal entry (or the sentencing hearing) and reference to the statute suffice; regularity presumed absent transcript | The journal entry failed to state the consequences; because Bryant has completed his sentence the court cannot resentence him and PRC is void and must be terminated | Court held PRC is void where the journal entry omits violation consequences and defendant has completed the sentence; ordered termination of PRC |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (remanding for resentencing under new sentencing law)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (failure to impose statutorily mandated postrelease control renders that part of the sentence void)