State v. Green
2011 Ohio 1636
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Indictment in 2000 for murder with a firearm specification and tampering with evidence; murder reduced to involuntary manslaughter.
- Plea of guilty on November 3, 2000; total sentence of 17 years.
- 2010 motion to withdraw guilty pleas and correct a void sentence for postrelease-control defect; trial court denied.
- Singleton establishes de novo sentencing for pre-July 11, 2006 sentences where postrelease-control wasn’t properly imposed; applicable here.
- Sentence entry stated postrelease control up to a maximum of 5 years and plea form stated discretionary 1–5 years; defective notification rendered the sentence void.
- Court grants Assignment I (partial reversal) and remands for de novo sentencing focused on proper postrelease control compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Postrelease control imposition void due to improper notice. | Green argues mandatory 5-year term not properly stated. | State contends current plea/entry adequate and error harmless. | Assignment I granted; de novo sentencing required for proper postrelease control. |
| Whether Crim.R. 32.1 withdrawal denied error given postrelease control issues. | Green argues plea invalid due to misinforming maximum penalty. | State asserts no manifest injustice; no prejudice shown. | Assignment II denied; no abuse of discretion in denying withdrawal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009) (mandatory postrelease-control notification required; de novo sentencing if pre-2006 sentence)
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (2009) (mandatory nature of postrelease control must be properly incorporated into sentencing entry)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (voidness when postrelease-control not properly stated)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007) (standard for analyzing postrelease-control errors)
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008) (postrelease-control error leading to potential void sentence)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (de novo sentencing limited to proper imposition of postrelease control)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (multitiered analysis for Crim.R.11 nonconstitutional rights issues)
- Nero v. United States, 56 Ohio St.3d 7 (1999) (substantial-compliance rule for nonconstitutional Crim.R.11 rights)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (complete failure to comply requires relief; partial compliance may sustain plea)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004) ( volitional standards for determining involuntariness of plea)
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (1977) (prejudice standard for Crim.R. 32.1 if partial compliance)