State v. Bundy
2013 Ohio 2501
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Bundy was convicted in 2002 of aggravated robbery and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery; the conspiracy conviction was reversed, leaving a ten-year sentence.
- Bundy was released on August 19, 2011, and placed under five years of postrelease control (PRC) under APA supervision.
- In March 2012 Bundy moved to terminate PRC, arguing improper PRC notification at sentencing and in the judgment entry, and that correction could not occur after release.
- The State moved for a nunc pro tunc entry to correct a clerical error omitted PRC language from the judgment entry and asserted correction was proper.
- The trial court issued a nunc pro tunc judgment incorporating PRC language, citing Qualls as authority, but Bundy argued correction was improper since his release had already occurred.
- The Seventh District held the nunc pro tunc correction was unauthorized because it occurred after Bundy completed his prison term, requiring discharge from PRC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nunc pro tunc correction after release is valid | State contends correction valid under Qualls to reflect hearing notice. | Bundy asserts correction after release is void and cannot cure lack of notice. | Correction invalid; discharge from PRC required. |
| Is PRC notification at sentencing and incorporation in judgment entry required | State argues adequate notification was given and entry should reflect it. | Bundy argues entry failed to notify and correction cannot retroactively fix. | Proper notification required at sentencing and in the entry; here the entry was deficient. |
| Effect of omission when defendant has completed prison term | Qualls allows correction pre-release; state reliance on it is appropriate. | Once released, correction cannot impose PRC; remedy lies in discharge. | Omission cannot be corrected after completion of term; discharge warranted. |
| Impact of prior case law (Qualls/Hernandez) on this disposition | Qualls supports nunc pro tunc correction for pre-release Omissions. | Hernandez underscores need for proper notice; here correction occurs too late. | Qualls prerequisites not satisfied; Hernandez principle supports discharge. |
| Should Bundy be released from PRC | PRC remains enforceable with corrected notice. | No enforceable PRC due to void sentence and late correction. | Bundy discharged from PRC; judgment reversed and remanded for discharge |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012-Ohio-1111) (correction of PRC notification via nunc pro tunc before release; no new sentencing hearing)
- Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 (2006-Ohio-126) (not notifying at sentencing or in entry invalidates PRC; habeas relief if term served)
- State v. Duncan, 2013-Ohio-381 (1st Dist. No. C-120324) (correction after release voids PRC; discharge required)
- State v. Baker, 2012-Ohio-5645 (9th Dist. No. 26411) (correction of PRC term correction after release void)
- State v. Murray, 2012-Ohio-4996 (6th Dist. No. L-10-1059) (notice sufficiency via statutory references in absence of full entry)