State v. Grimes (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 2927
| Ohio | 2017Background
- In Aug. 2011 the trial court sentenced Bradley Grimes for robbery and vandalism, orally advising him of postrelease control (PRC); the written sentencing entry stated PRC was "mandatory...for three (03) years" and referenced R.C. 2967.28 and consequences for violating PRC.
- Grimes was released and began serving three years of PRC under the Adult Parole Authority (APA).
- In 2013 Grimes was indicted and later sentenced for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor; the court converted the remainder of his 2011 PRC term into prison time (a judicial-sanction sentence) in 2014.
- Grimes moved in 2015 to vacate that judicial-sanction sentence, arguing the 2011 PRC had not been validly imposed because the 2011 journal did not state the specific consequences for violating PRC.
- The Fifth District reversed, holding the 2011 entry was silent as to the consequences of violating PRC; the State appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held the 2011 entry contained the minimum information required to validly impose PRC when the requisite advisements were given orally at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What must a sentencing entry contain to validly impose PRC when the court properly advises the offender at the sentencing hearing? | State: entry may incorporate oral advisements by reference to R.C. 2967.28 and need not verbatim repeat them. | Grimes: entry must explicitly state the consequences for violating PRC (e.g., APA may impose up to one-half of the original term). | Entry must (1) state whether PRC is discretionary or mandatory, (2) state duration, and (3) state that the APA will administer PRC under R.C. 2967.28 and that violations expose the offender to statutory consequences; the 2011 entry met these requirements. |
| Does referencing R.C. 2967.28 in the journal suffice to inform APA and defendant of PRC consequences? | State: yes; referencing the statute lets APA and defendant consult the statute for consequences. | Grimes: such incorporation is insufficient; journal must spell out consequences. | Yes—the Court held referencing R.C. 2967.28 plus the three items above is minimally sufficient when oral advisements were made. |
| If the journal is deficient, is correction via nunc pro tunc acceptable? | State (and prior cases): nunc pro tunc can cure a deficient entry if done before the defendant completes the prison term. | Grimes: relied on prior case law finding some entries void. | The Court reaffirmed that nunc pro tunc correction may be appropriate (citing Qualls), but here correction was unnecessary because the entry was adequate. |
| Are PRC-related journal omissions necessarily jurisdictional (void) and open to collateral attack? | State and some amici urged treating some defects as voidable (not addressed fully here). | Grimes relied on cases treating PRC defects as void, allowing collateral attack. | The majority did not decide the void-vs-voidable question here (case decided on sufficiency of the journal). Concurring opinions urged revisiting the Court’s void-sentence and statutory approaches. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (trial court must notify offender at sentencing and incorporate notice in journal)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (nunc pro tunc can cure a deficient journal if done before prison term completion)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (discussing failures to validly impose postrelease control)
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (nunc pro tunc and resentencing defects in a capital case; court required precise compliance)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (discussing void vs. voidable sentencing errors and postrelease-control jurisprudence)