State v. Dines
2014 Ohio 3143
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2006 Noah Dines pleaded guilty to three counts of rape in exchange for an 18-year recommended sentence; 43 other counts were nolled.
- In January 2007 the court sentenced Dines to three consecutive six-year terms and imposed a mandatory five-year period of postrelease control; the sentencing entry omitted full postrelease-control consequences.
- Dines filed pro se motions in 2013 seeking withdrawal of plea and correction of the judgment entry; the state conceded the journal entry lacked required postrelease-control detail.
- The trial court denied plea withdrawal but held a limited resentencing hearing in November 2013 to advise Dines of postrelease control and issued a new journal entry that still lacked full detail.
- At the November 2013 hearing one of the three six-year sentences had already been completed by Dines.
- Dines appealed, challenging (1) procedural compliance in recording and advising postrelease control and (2) imposition of postrelease control on the sentence he had already served.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court was required to follow R.C. 2929.191(A) procedures and enter a nunc pro tunc correction for postrelease-control notification | State: The court should conduct limited resentencing or nunc pro tunc correction to fix omission | Dines: Trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.191, did not journal a nunc pro tunc correction, and did not properly advise of consequences | Court: R.C. 2929.191(A) inapplicable (sentence after July 11, 2006); but because the journal omitted required consequences, remand for a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect full postrelease-control advisal (sustained in part) |
| Whether court could impose postrelease control for the rape count whose prison term had already been served | State: Postrelease control may be imposed at resentencing | Dines: Court lacked authority to impose postrelease control on an offense for which the prison term was already completed | Court: Cannot impose postrelease control on an offense after its sentence has been served; remand to vacate postrelease control as to that completed count (sustained) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (governs remedial procedure permitting limited resentencing/nunc pro tunc corrections for postrelease-control defects)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (trial court must provide statutorily compliant postrelease-control notification at sentencing and incorporate it in the entry)
- State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (2013) (court cannot add postrelease control for an offense after the prisoner has completed that offense's prison term)