State v. Cowan
2016 Ohio 8045
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Craig Cowan was convicted in 2012 of felonious assault, weapon-under-disability, improperly handling a firearm in a vehicle, discharging a firearm near prohibited premises, and related specifications; cumulative consecutive terms totaled 18 years.
- Multiple appeals followed; this is the sixth appeal addressing sentencing and postrelease-control (PRC) notifications after successive resentencings and remands by the appellate court.
- The trial court repeatedly misstated the felony level of felonious assault as first degree (it is a second-degree felony) and repeatedly imposed or announced a mandatory five-year PRC term instead of the three years applicable to the most serious offense.
- The appellate court previously remanded solely for proper PRC advisement and journaling; the state conceded the PRC error and that the correct PRC term is three years.
- On remand the trial court advised Cowan regarding PRC; Cowan appealed again claiming due process violation from repeated erroneous resentencings and improper five-year PRC.
- The appellate court held PRC error is correctable while Cowan remains incarcerated, declined to find a due-process bar to correction, and reversed/remanded to (1) correct the journal to reflect proper felony levels and (2) impose/record the correct three-year PRC term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly imposed postrelease control length | State conceded trial court erred and correct PRC is three years for second-degree felony | Cowan argued trial court repeatedly imposed an unlawful mandatory five-year PRC and that due process prevents correction after multiple hearings | Court held PRC notification was erroneous; correct term is three years and remand is appropriate to correct and journalize PRC |
| Whether felony-level classification affected PRC and sentencing | State conceded felonious assault is a second-degree felony; eight-year term is within range | Cowan argued felony level was wrongly stated as first degree and that error supports due-process relief | Court held misclassification was an existing, recurring error but not a new due-process violation; journal entry must be corrected to show correct felony levels |
| Whether repeated resentencings violated due process or double jeopardy to bar correction | State argued PRC error is correctable while defendant remains incarcerated under precedent | Cowan argued multiple resentencings and persistent error deprived him of due process and finality | Court held repeated hearings were frustrating but not a due-process or double jeopardy bar to correcting PRC while Cowan remains in custody |
| Whether the sentencing entry must memorialize PRC advisement | State agreed PRC must be both orally given and incorporated in journal entry | Cowan argued prior entries were defective | Court held PRC advisement must be corrected in the record and sentencing entry per statutory and case law requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Fischer v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (sentence void only as to legally defective postrelease control and must be rectified)
- Simpkins v. Seaman, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008) (court may correct defective postrelease control while offender remains in custody)
- Singleton v. State, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009) (postrelease-control defects are separable and correctable)
- Qualls v. State, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (PRC notifications must be given at sentencing and incorporated into journal entry)
- Holdcroft v. State, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (2013) (court retains jurisdiction to correct flawed PRC imposition while offender remains incarcerated; correcting does not violate due process or double jeopardy)
- Bloomer v. State, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (2009) (once released, offender cannot be resentenced to correct flawed PRC imposition)
- In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267 (2007) (discussion of due process as ‘‘fundamental fairness’’ and its flexible application)