State v. Grier
2016 Ohio 8036
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Breyona Grier pleaded guilty to robbery after attempting to shoplift and resisting a store employee; the state recommended mental-health court and the case was referred there.
- A PSI recommended incarceration, but on February 26, 2015 the trial court sentenced Grier to five years of community control contingent on her completing the Teen Challenge program; the judgment was journalized that day.
- Grier was remanded to jail pending transport to Teen Challenge; she remained in custody because Teen Challenge did not ultimately accept her.
- On May 6, 2015 the trial court conducted a "re-sentencing" hearing and, without any new record evidence other than Teen Challenge’s unavailability, resentenced Grier to three years’ imprisonment.
- The state later filed a confession of judgment admitting the May 6 incarceration sentence was improper; Grier appealed and the appellate court stayed release pending bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to modify a final sentence after it was journalized | State argued imprisonment was appropriate once treatment program proved unavailable | Grier argued the February 26 journalized sentence was final and the court lacked jurisdiction to modify it | Court held the February 26 journalized community-control sentence was final; the court lacked jurisdiction to re-sentence on May 6 and the incarceration order was vacated |
| Whether resentencing violated due process | State implicitly argued resentencing was permissible to serve defendant's rehabilitative needs | Grier argued due process was violated because court acted without jurisdiction and without new supporting facts | Court found resentencing improper as there was no new jurisdictional basis; due-process challenge sustained |
| Whether double jeopardy barred the second sentencing | State did not press a distinct double-jeopardy defense in the record | Grier argued second sentencing exposed her to additional punishment after final sentence | Court found this issue moot after deciding the first assignment (vacating the second sentence) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. Baker, 893 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R. 32 journalization creates final appealable order)
- State v. Gilbert, 35 N.E.3d 493 (Ohio 2014) (trial court loses jurisdiction after entry of final sentence)
- State v. Carlisle, 961 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio App. 2011) (trial court generally lacks authority to modify a final criminal sentence absent statutory basis)