State v. Davis
2011 Ohio 6776
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Davis was indicted in 2004 on felonious assault and abduction; convicted in 2005 and sentenced to concurrent terms.
- The first direct appeal affirmed the conviction but held the initial sentence unconstitutional under Foster and ordered resentencing.
- In 2006, at resentencing, the court imposed the same seven-year and four-year concurrent terms; Davis appealed and the judgment was affirmed.
- In 2009, Davis moved to resentence again because the judgment stated postrelease control was discretionary, not mandatory.
- A second resentencing was held; the court again imposed the same sentence and later entered a judgment stating postrelease control was mandatory.
- On review, Davis challenged whether a R.C. 2929.191 hearing is a critical stage requiring counsel and whether omission of counsel at the start of the hearing violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a resentencing hearing under R.C. 2929.191 is a critical stage | Davis contends it is a critical stage requiring counsel. | State concedes it may be critical but argues analysis shows otherwise. | Not a critical stage; ministerial in nature. |
| Whether denial of private counsel at the start of the hearing violated the right to counsel | Davis argues denial or constructive denial breached right to counsel at a critical stage. | State asserts no right to private consultation given ministerial nature and lack of prejudice. | No violation; no right to private counsel at this ministerial proceeding. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (correcting a void sentence limits resentencing to postrelease control; no broader de novo review)
- State v. Davis, 2010-Ohio-5294 (Davis III) (Davis III; de novo resentencing not required for postrelease control errors after Fischer)
- Griffis v. State, 2011-Ohio-2955 (Muskingum App. 2011) (reinforces ministerial nature of post-Fischer resentencing; limited prejudice shown)
- State v. Morton, 2011-Ohio-1488 (Franklin App. 2011) (videoconference resentencing; lack of explicit critical-stage analysis; prejudice focus)
- State v. Reed, 2010-Ohio-5819 (Franklin App. 2010) (pre-Fischer view on videoconference resentencing; lack of prejudice analysis)
- State v. Steimle, 2011-Ohio-1071 (Cuyahoga App. 2011) (resentencing via videoconference; harmless error focus)
- State v. Davis, 2006-Ohio-3549 (Davis I) (reassessment of Foster-based sentencing; de novo issues considered)
- State v. Davis, 2007-Ohio-1281 (Davis II) (affirmed resentencing; rejected non-minimum sentence challenges)