State v. Griffin
2016 Ohio 782
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Charles Griffin was convicted in 2005 by jury of murder and having weapons under a disability; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
- In December 2014 Griffin filed a second notice of appeal from his 2005 judgment (appeal C-150005); in February 2015 he filed a motion in the common pleas court seeking resentencing (appeal C-150258) claiming sentencing notifications were deficient.
- Griffin argued the trial court failed to (1) notify him that community service could substitute for court costs and (2) provide adequate postrelease-control notification at sentencing and in the judgment.
- The common pleas court overruled Griffin’s motion; Griffin appealed that denial (C-150258) and also pursued the late appeal from the 2005 convictions (C-150005).
- This court dismissed the late direct appeal for lack of jurisdiction, held the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction under the postconviction statutes to entertain the untimely postconviction claims, but found Griffin’s sentences void to the extent postrelease control was improperly imposed and remanded for correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the December 2014 appeal from the 2005 conviction timely? | State: appeal untimely and must be dismissed. | Griffin: sought to appeal conviction (no timeliness defense overcame). | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under App.R. 4(A)(1). |
| Could the common pleas court entertain Griffin’s late postconviction motion? | State: R.C. 2953.21–.23 time/jurisdiction bars the late/successive claim. | Griffin: sought resentencing based on sentencing-notice defects; urged relief despite timing. | Court: motion governed by postconviction statutes; Griffin failed to satisfy R.C. 2953.23, so court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits; motion dismissed. |
| Was the failure to give community-service-in-lieu-of-costs notice a basis to void the sentence? | State: omission does not render sentence void. | Griffin: absence of that notification invalidates portion of sentence. | Failure to give that notice did not make sentence void; not subject to void-judgment correction. |
| Was the postrelease-control notification defective such that the sentence (or portion) is void and subject to correction? | State: sentencing notifications must comply with statutory postrelease-control requirements. | Griffin: trial court failed to accurately state postrelease control (wrong duration/characterization) and omitted it from the judgment. | Held void to the extent postrelease control was not imposed in conformity with statute; remanded for correction of postrelease-control portions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Curran v. Brookes, 142 Ohio St. 107 (timeliness of appeals; appellate jurisdiction)
- State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 (postconviction statutes are exclusive remedy for collateral challenge)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (court always has jurisdiction to correct a void judgment)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (postrelease-control notification requirements)
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (postrelease-control requirements and effect of noncompliance)
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (postrelease-control statutory framework)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (void portions of sentence subject to correction at any time)