State v. Evans
2011 Ohio 2153
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Evans was charged Jan. 9, 2001 with aggravated murder and a three-year firearm specification.
- At trial, the jury found Evans guilty of murder with a three-year firearm specification; the court imposed 15 years to life plus a three-year firearm spec.
- Evans appealed and postconviction relief petitions were denied; appellate decisions affirmed.
- On July 21, 2010 Evans filed a motion to vacate void sentence arguing postrelease control was improperly imposed.
- The trial court denied the motion; Evans appeals challenging the postrelease-control imposition and its effect on the sentence.
- The court ultimately remanded to correct the sentencing journal entry to remove postrelease-control language, holding the sentence itself remained valid under Fischer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postrelease control was lawfully imposed on a murder sentence. | Evans contends postrelease control was without statutory authority. | Evans asserts the sentence is void for improper postrelease-control imposition. | Remand to correct journal entry; sentence not void. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008-Ohio-3748) (postrelease control not applicable to unclassified felonies like murder)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (postrelease-control issues affect only the postrelease-control portion, not the entire sentence)
- State v. McIntosh, 2010-Ohio-6471 (—) (remanding to correct postrelease-control language when appropriate)
- State v. Rolling, 2011-Ohio-121 (—) (similar remand/remedy approach for postrelease-control language)
- State v. McCree, 2007-Ohio-268 (—) (discussion of postrelease-control implications)
- State v. Austin, 2009-Ohio-6108 (—) (distinguishes cases where sentencing entry limits postrelease-control)