State v. Cedeno
192 Ohio App. 3d 738
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Cedeno was convicted in 1997 of four counts of aggravated robbery, four counts of robbery, and nine counts of kidnapping; conviction affirmed on appeal and then reconsidered in 2010.
- The reconsideration was prompted by State v. Jordan line of decisions establishing postrelease-control sentencing voids and time-extension for reconsideration.
- Facts involve two armed robberies: a fast-food restaurant robbery and a drugstore robbery, with co-perpetrators Roberson and Watson identified.
- Police recovered weapons in the car in which Roberson, Watson, and Cedeno rode, and Cedeno gave a recorded statement detailing the robberies and driving the getaway car.
- The trial court var a suppression issue regarding Cedeno’s taped confession, and issues regarding sufficiency and weight of the evidence were raised.
- The court vacated the sentences in part for failure to impose postrelease control as required by statute and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the verdict form defect preserved and harmless? | Cedeno argues missing written verdict form for count 17. | Cedeno contends error requires reversal. | Waived; no plain error; judgment affirmed on that point. |
| Was Cedeno’s taped confession admissible under Miranda and voluntary under due process? | Cedeno argues Miranda rights were not properly waived and confession involuntary. | State argues rights were given and waiver voluntary. | Miranda warnings adequate and waiver voluntary; confession admissible. |
| Is the evidence legally sufficient and not against the manifest weight for the charged counts? | Crim.R. 29 should have led to acquittal due to insufficiency/weight. | Evidence supports conviction; not against weight. | Evidence sufficient; not against the weight; Crim.R. 29 denial affirmed. |
| Are Cedeno’s sentences void for failing to notify/postrelease-control imposition? | Sentence did not include postrelease-control notification as required. | Not expressly argued as error on appeal. | Sentences vacated in part; remanded for proper postrelease-control imposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 817 N.E.2d 864 (2004-Ohio-6085) (postrelease-control notification voids a sentence)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 942 N.E.2d 332 (2010-Ohio-6238) (Bezak framework and postrelease-control implications clarified)
- Dailey, 53 Ohio St.3d 88, 559 N.E.2d 459 (1990) (totality-of-the-circumstances for voluntariness)
- Eley, 77 Ohio St.3d 174, 672 N.E.2d 640 (1996) (voluntariness and waiver standards)
- Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) (Miranda waiver and interrogation standards)