Background

• Feaster, age 17, pleaded in juvenile court in 2007 to involuntary manslaughter, felonious assault, gang participation, and aggravated riot; designated serious youthful offender with a suspended 13-year adult sentence; post-release control not mentioned.
• State moved to invoke the adult portion in August 2007; trial court imposed the previously suspended sentence and designation; judgment did not mention post-release control.
• Appellate court affirmed; Feaster sought Supreme Court review; while this was pending, he moved to withdraw his plea based on lack of post-release control notification; Supreme Court granted State’s motions to dismiss and vacate.
• Upon remand, trial court held a hearing, denied the motion to withdraw, and issued a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry.
• Feaster appeals sole assignment challenging the lack of post-release control information at plea/sentencing; the court agrees and vacates the plea, remanding for further proceedings consistent with post-release control law.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (mandatory post-release control inform required; vacate if omitted)
• State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007) (post-release control defect renders sentence void)
• State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009) (distinguishes post-July 11, 2006 sentences; severability of post-release control)
• State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (retired Bezak rule; post-release control component severable from remainder)
• State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (res judicata limits on appealing one component of a multi-offense sentence)
• State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (jurisdictional considerations after appeal; limits to movant's rights)
• In re Hendrickson, 114 Ohio App.3d 290 (1996) (Juv.R. 29(D) requires explaining consequences of admission)
• In re Hall, 9th Dist. No. 14-05-33 (2006) (recognizes that Juv.R. 29(D) requires conveying consequences)