2020 Ohio 370
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- In 2002 Conn was sentenced for felonious assault and escape; the sentencing entry stated post-release control (PRC) was “MANDATORY in this case up to a maximum of five (5) years.”
- Conn was released in 2013 and placed on PRC; in 2014 he was indicted and pled guilty to breaking-and-entering and was given a 42-month sentence plus a consecutive 1,487-day judicial-sanction for violating PRC.
- Conn moved to vacate the judicial-sanction, arguing the 2002 entry’s use of “up to” rendered the PRC portion void, so he was not subject to PRC when he committed the new offense.
- The trial court denied the motion; Conn appealed to the Fourth District.
- The Fourth District reviewed competing district-court approaches to “up to” language (some treating it as voiding PRC, others applying a totality-of-the-circumstances test) and chose the totality approach.
- The court held the record (including a plea form stating “I will have 5 years of post-release control”) taken as a whole showed adequate notice, so the PRC/judicial-sanction was not void; it affirmed the trial court.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Conn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing entry’s use of “up to” voids the mandatory five-year PRC and thus voids the subsequent judicial-sanction. | The record as a whole (including plea forms and presumptively-correct oral advisals) shows Conn was properly notified of mandatory 5-year PRC, so the PRC sentence is valid. | The phrase “up to a maximum of five years” fails to impose a mandatory five-year PRC as required by statute, rendering the PRC and the later judicial-sanction void. | Court rejects Conn’s argument: the “up to” phrasing is a technical defect that does not automatically void PRC where the record as a whole demonstrates proper notice; sentence affirmed. |
| Whether this court should follow its prior bright-line decision in State v. Burns (treating “up to” as void) or adopt a totality-of-the-circumstances test. | The record-based (totality) approach is proper; technical wording flaws should not automatically void PRC where adequate notice is shown. | Burns’ bright-line rule makes the PRC analysis automatic and should control. | The court departs from Burns and adopts the totality-of-the-circumstances approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grimes, 85 N.E.3d 700 (Ohio 2017) (trial court must notify and journal PRC; sentencing entry must state nature, duration, and administering authority)
- State v. Fischer, 942 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio 2010) (portion of sentence imposed without proper PRC notification is void and subject to correction)
- State v. Jordan, 817 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio 2004) (trial court must provide notice of PRC at sentencing hearing and journal it)
- State v. Bloomer, 909 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio 2009) (discusses limits of jurisdiction and correction when sentencing errors occur)
- State v. Simpkins, 884 N.E.2d 568 (Ohio 2008) (addresses postconviction/jurisdictional issues related to sentencing corrections)