State v. Davis
2011 Ohio 6025
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Davis, in Mahoning County, was convicted by jury on five counts of cocaine trafficking (two fourth-degree, one second-degree, two third-degree).
- Sentencing occurred December 12, 2005; aggregate term 11 years, later reduced to eight on direct appeal after dismissals of some counts.
- The judgment entry noted Davis was advised pursuant to R.C. 2967.28, but did not state mandatory post-release control or its duration.
- Davis challenged the sentence, arguing the judgment entry failed to properly notify him about post-release control, making the sentence void.
- Fischer and Bezak line of cases govern whether post-release control must be properly stated and whether partial or full resentencing is required to cure defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-release control notice in the judgment entry was sufficient | Davis | Davis | Not sufficient; notice incomplete and requires correction |
| Whether the remedy is a new sentencing hearing or a corrected entry | Davis | Davis | Remand to correct the judgment entry; no de novo resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (void sentencing if post-release notice is inadequate)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (partially void sentence; correction limited to post-release control without full resentencing)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004-Ohio-6085) (proper post-release control notices required at sentencing)