State v. Ellis
2017 Ohio 7606
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- William Ellis was convicted in two Cuyahoga County cases (CR-07-495646-A and CR-07-498821-A) and received prison terms with postrelease control (PRC) stated in the sentencing journal entries (3 and 5 years respectively).
- Sentencing entries recited that PRC was part of the prison sentence and cited R.C. 2967.28, but did not state the consequences for violating PRC or include the detailed Grimes advisements.
- Ellis completed his prison terms and was released to PRC in May 2015.
- In July 2016 Ellis moved to terminate PRC, arguing the PRC terms were void because the sentencing entries failed to include the required consequences/advisements.
- The trial court denied the motion relying on State ex rel. Rudert; the state ultimately conceded error on appeal.
- The Eighth District reversed and ordered termination of PRC, noting Grimes requires certain information in the sentencing entry and that Ellis’s entries lacked those requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PRC was validly imposed where the sentencing entries omitted consequences for violating PRC | The State relied on record regularity / prior authority to uphold imposition (and had relied on Rudert below) | Ellis: journal entries failed to include required advisements/consequences so PRC is void | Court: PRC terms in the entries are void because required Grimes information was not included; reverse and terminate PRC |
| Whether the trial court retains jurisdiction to correct defective PRC after the sentence is completed | The State argued correction/assumption of regularity could support enforcement | Ellis: once sentence completed, court lacks jurisdiction to cure defective PRC; term should be terminated | Court: following precedent, when sentence is completed the void PRC must be terminated |
| Whether an absent sentencing-transcript affects the analysis (i.e., presume oral advisements) | The State suggested presumption of regularity may apply if no transcript of sentencing is offered | Ellis argued journal entry must contain required details regardless of transcript | Court: under Grimes, if transcript is absent, presume oral advisements but the sentencing entry still must contain Grimes-specified information; entries here did not, so PRC void |
| Whether termination of PRC affects sexual-offender reporting obligations | State argued termination of PRC does not alter registration duties | Ellis sought full release from PRC supervision only | Court: ordered termination of PRC but expressly noted this does not affect Ellis’s sex-offender reporting requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (trial court failure to properly impose PRC is void)
- State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (court lacks jurisdiction to correct PRC after sentence completion)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (requirements for statutorily compliant PRC advisement at sentencing)
- Natl. City Bank v. Beyer, 89 Ohio St.3d 152 (presumption of regularity when record lacks a transcript)