State v. Hach
2014 Ohio 909
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In 1999 Thomas Hach was convicted by jury of multiple counts of rape and gross sexual imposition; the original sentencing entry stated he would be subject to five years post-release control “to the extent the parole board may determine.”
- The trial court later issued several nunc pro tunc entries (1999, 2011) to correct clerical omissions (e.g., manner of conviction), and in June 2013 it reissued a single sentencing entry incorporating prior corrections.
- Hach moved for resentencing and argued the sentencing entry violated Crim.R. 32(C) and that he was entitled to be present when post-release control was imposed under R.C. 2929.191.
- The State conceded the post-release control language was incorrect because the parole board has no discretion to alter the statutorily required five-year term for first-degree felonies under R.C. 2967.28(B)(1).
- The Ninth District held that the post-release control portion of the judgment is void and remanded for a new sentencing hearing limited to proper imposition of post-release control; the court vacated the sentencing entry in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-release control was improperly imposed without Hach being present | Hach: R.C. 2929.191 and Crim.R. 43 entitle him to be present when post-release control is imposed | State: Post-release control language was in the original 1999 entry, not first imposed in 2013 | Court: Hach not entitled to relief on presence argument because PRC was not first imposed in 2013; but PRC language is void for using discretionary phrasing and remand is required for limited resentencing |
| Whether the post-release control language complied with R.C. 2967.28(B)(1) | Hach: entry failed to impose statutorily mandated PRC term correctly | State: did not dispute substance that language was incorrect | Court: language was incorrect and therefore that portion of the sentence is void; remand for hearing limited to imposing the statutorily required five-year PRC |
| Whether the June 21, 2013 reissued sentencing entry was a valid nunc pro tunc or an unauthorized new judgment | Hach: challenged the 2013 entry and raised defects | State/Trial court: treated 2013 entry as incorporating prior corrections | Court: majority avoided deciding full authority question; concur/dissent addressed it — majority treated the court as able to correct clerical omissions and vacated only the void PRC portion; one judge would have vacated the entire 2013 entry as unauthorized |
| Scope of remedy and appellate jurisdiction to correct PRC error | Hach: sought relief from the reissued entry | State: argued issues about appealability | Court: Regardless of appealability of the 2013 entry, appellate court has inherent power to vacate void portions of a sentence and remand for correction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (sentence imposing post-release control contrary to statute is void and requires limited resentencing)
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R. 32(C) requires elements of final judgment be contained in a single document)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (Ohio 2011) (nunc pro tunc entry correcting clerical omission to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) is not a new final order appealable on its own)
- State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 (Ohio 2010) (trial court lacks authority to reconsider a valid final criminal judgment except to correct a void sentence or a clerical error)