State v. Davis
2011 Ohio 2526
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant James A. Davis was convicted in 2003 of murder after pleading guilty to an amended charge; firearm specs and tampering charges were dismissed.
- The 2003 sentencing journal stated postrelease control for the maximum period allowed under R.C. 2967.28, which does not apply to murder.
- Davis’s sentencing journal entry did not clearly reflect that postrelease control was properly imposed, creating a potential clerical error.
- Davis pursued multiple postconviction and appeal efforts, including a delayed appeal and mandamus petitions, challenging the sentencing entry.
- In 2010 the State filed Crim.R. 36 nunc pro tunc motion to remove postrelease control language and correct the sentencing record, which the trial court granted.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the nunc pro tunc correction, holding no de novo sentencing hearing was required and that the correction was proper under Crim.R. 36.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the nunc pro tunc correction proper without a new sentencing hearing? | Davis contends no new sentencing hearing; the journal entry remained void. | State contends correction was clerical and allowed by Crim.R. 36. | Yes; correction proper without new sentencing hearing. |
| Did Davis receive a de novo sentencing hearing due to postrelease-control issues? | Bezak/Fischer entitlement to de novo hearing for postrelease-control errors. | Fischer limits de novo hearing to postrelease-control imposition corrections. | Moot; Fischer limits remedy to striking postrelease-control language. |
| Is the sentencing journal entry void for including postrelease control language? | Yes, due to improper imposition for murder. | Entry reflected truth; no actual postrelease control imposed. | Not void; no postrelease-control term imposed by law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (limits de novo review to postrelease-control issues)
- State v. Gordon, 2010-Ohio-6308 (2010) (postrelease-control not imposed for murder; aligns with Bezak/Fischer)
- State v. Austin, 2009-Ohio-6108 (2009) (narrative of postrelease-control imposition clarified)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007) (Bezak: Bezak-type de novo hearing for postrelease control)