State v. Copeland
2011 Ohio 6034
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Copeland was convicted in 2003 of carrying concealed weapons, having weapons under a disability, and six counts of aggravated robbery.
- He challenged his convictions on direct appeal to the Ohio appellate courts and the Ohio Supreme Court without success.
- In 2010, Copeland filed a motion in the trial court seeking a new sentencing hearing on the ground that postrelease control notification was inadequate.
- The postrelease-control statutes require the court to notify the offender of the mandatory nature and length of postrelease control and to incorporate that notification in the sentencing entry.
- At sentencing and in the judgment entry, the court failed to specify the duration of each postrelease-control period and failed to notify Copeland about the mandatory nature of the postrelease-control terms.
- The trial court overruled Copeland’s motion; the matter is remanded for proper imposition of postrelease control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether void sentences due to postrelease-control notification defects can be corrected on remand | Copeland asserts sentences are void for inadequate postrelease-control notification. | Copeland contends insufficient notification warrants correction. | Yes; remand for correction of postrelease-control portions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (2009) (mandatory postrelease-control notification required)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (void sentences where postrelease-control notification is defective; correction required)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (notify of mandatory postrelease-control terms and include in entry)