State v. Harris
132 Ohio St. 3d 318
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Two Harris cases involve alleged sentencing errors regarding statutorily mandated terms and forfeiture.
- Harris I: guilty plea to drug trafficking with schoolyard, firearm, and forfeiture specs; five-year prison term but no mandatory driver’s license suspension or fine; forfeiture order entry later.
- Harris II: guilty plea to drug trafficking with automobile-forfeiture spec; license suspension not imposed; court voided sentence and remanded for resentencing.
- Eighth District conflicted with First District over whether failure to include license suspension voids the sentence; this Court accepted jurisdiction on the state’s proposition of law regarding forfeiture not needing to be listed in Crim.R. 32(C).
- Court holds: (1) failure to include mandatory license suspension renders that part of the sentence void and remand limited to imposing the license suspension; (2) forfeiture is not a sentencing term and need not be included in the judgment of conviction to be final; (3) Crim.R. 32(C) does not require forfeiture to be listed in the sentencing entry; appealability and remand procedures follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does failure to include mandatory driver’s license suspension render the sentence void? | Harris argued the sentence is void under Beasley. | Beasley applies; violation voids entire sentence. | Yes; the missing license suspension renders part of the sentence void. |
| Is forfeiture a sentencing term that must be in Crim.R. 32(C) judgment? | Forfeiture is part of the punishment under R.C. 2981.04; should be in judgment. | Forfeiture is civil, not a criminal sanction; not a sentence. | No; forfeiture is not a sentence and need not be in the judgment of conviction. |
| Must Crim.R. 32(C) require forfeiture to be listed in the sentencing entry for finality? | Forfeiture should appear to render a final, appealable order. | Forfeiture not within four Crim.R. 32(C) elements. | Finality does not require forfeiture to be listed in the sentencing entry. |
| What is the proper remedy on remand when a license suspension is omitted? | Resentencing should address all errors. | Resentencing limited to proper imposition of the license suspension. | Remand for resentencing limited to imposing the required license suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (Crim.R. 32(C) finality requires four elements)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (clarified four essential Crim.R. 32(C) elements)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007) (void sentence when postrelease control not properly imposed)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (limits of void-sentence doctrine; proper resentencing)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (notice of postrelease control required at sentencing)
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (2010) (court costs distinguished from criminal punishment)
- Colegrove v. Burns, 175 Ohio St. 437 (1964) (void if statutorily mandated term not imposed)
- Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (1984) (forfeiture as part of sentencing beyond Bezak scope)
- Hill, 70 Ohio St.3d 25 (1994) (forfeiture can be punishment for offense)
- Tuomala, 104 Ohio St.3d 93 (2004) (forfeiture statute relevance to conviction)
- Thomas, 2010-Ohio-4856 (2010) (First District on driver’s license suspension)