State v. Handcock
2011 Ohio 2559
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Handcock appeals post-conviction relief from a Clark County trial court’s denial of a motion to vacate a void sentence under R.C. 2953.08(A)(4).
- Handcock was convicted in 2008 of felonious assault with a firearm specification, having weapons under a disability, and carrying a concealed weapon; the sentence ran consecutively for an aggregate term of 17.5 years.
- The conviction followed a prior direct appeal in Handcock I, where this Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in 2009.
- Handcock argued the sentence was void due to improper consecutive-sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and errors about post-release control at sentencing.
- Handcock also argued the indictment issue on Count IV (discharging a firearm near a prohibited premises) rendered the sentence void, since Count IV was dismissed before jury deliberations.
- The trial court overruled the post-conviction motion, and Handcock timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive-sentence findings void? | Handcock | State | Overruled |
| Indictment defect rendering sentence void? | Handcock | State | Overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (severed findings requirement for consecutive sentences)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (relevance to post-release-control considerations)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) (revives or preserves findings requirements post-Foster)
- Harris v. State, 125 Ohio St. 257 (1932) (indictment defects do not void entire indictment)
- State v. Keplinger, 2003-Ohio-3447 (2003-Ohio-3447) (partial reversal of count does not void remaining convictions)