State v. Griffis
2011 Ohio 2955
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Griffis was convicted of assault-robbery at knife-point in broad daylight in a drug-store parking lot, with victim identification and corroborating testimony from others.
- Jurors reported at defense counsel that one night they drove to Griffis’s residence to gauge distance to the arrest site, influencing deliberations.
- Trial defense moved for a new trial on juror misconduct; the court denied based on the aliunde rule.
- On direct appeal, this ruling was affirmed and the Ohio Supreme Court denied review.
- In 2010 Griffis was resentenced after the court failed to properly inform him about post-release control; the court again imposed a five-year mandatory post-release control term.
- Griffis timely appealed challenging (1) the de novo hearing, (2) counsel at resentencing, and (3) whether his convictions were allied offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Griffis entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing? | Griffis argues a de novo hearing was required under Singleton and Fischer Bezak framework. | Griffis argues failure to provide de novo hearing violated due process. | No; de novo hearing limited to proper imposition of post-release control. |
| Was Griffis entitled to counsel at the resentencing hearing? | Bezak/Fischer entitle counsel at void-sentence resentencing. | Resentencing was ministerial; counsel unnecessary. | Counsel not required; proceeding was ministerial and limited to post-release language. |
| Were Griffis's convictions properly reviewed for allied offenses at resentencing? | Resentencing review should consider allied-offense criteria. | Res judicata and Fischer limit new challenges post-resentencing. | Allied-offense review barred; res judicata applies; no new allied-offense issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (de novo post-release control hearing for pre-July 11, 2006 sentences)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (void sentence for improper post-release control; new sentencing hearing limited to post-release issues)
- State v. Fischer, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6238 (2010-Ohio-6238) (limits Bezak to proper imposition of post-release control; not full de novo sentencing for all issues)
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010-Ohio-3831) (res judicata applies to merits; restricts new issues on direct appeal after resentencing)
- Puckett v. United States, U.S. 129 S. Ct. 1423 (2010 WL) (harmless-error framework for unpreserved errors; limits appellate relief)