State v. Griffie
2011 Ohio 6704
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Griffie was indicted in 2002 for kidnapping and weapons while under disability, pled guilty to kidnapping, and received an aggregate eight-year sentence after merging firearm specifications.
- The trial court failed to properly inform Griffie about mandatory post-release control during the original sentencing.
- Amended termination entries in 2004 corrected court costs but did not fix information about post-release control or denial of shock incarceration/intensive program.
- A 2010 re-sentencing hearing corrected Griffie’s post-release control advisement and an amended entry issued May 26, 2010 correctly stated the post-release control term.
- The State conceded that the amended entry improperly denied Griffie’s placement in shock incarceration or an intensive program, which remained unresolved.
- Griffie appeals, challenging the correctness of the post-release control advisement and the trial court’s denial of certain program placements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Griffie was properly informed of post-release control | State argues Griffie was correctly advised of PRC terms at re-sentencing | Griffie contends misadvisement and jurisdiction issues due to unrelated sentences | Griffie's first assignment overruled; advisement was proper |
| Whether trial court erred by disapproving shock/intensive programs without required findings | State concedes error in omitting findings under R.C. 2929.19(D) | Griffie asserts improper disapproval and premature disapproval of transitional control | Second assignment sustained in part; remand to delete transitional-control disapproval; other aspects affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Howard, 190 Ohio App.3d 734 (2010-Ohio-5283) (requires findings when disapproving shock/incarceration; premature for transitional control)
- State v. Porcher, 2011-Ohio-5976 (2011-Ohio-5976) (remedy for improper disapproval of program placements via remand)
- Hairston v. Seidner, 88 Ohio St.3d 57 (2000-Ohio-271) (journal-entry control; speaks through its journal entries)
- State v. Arnold, 189 Ohio App.3d 238 (2009-Ohio-3636) (premature or improper post-release control arguments; relevance to jurisdiction)