State v. Hatcher
2017 Ohio 109
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On Sept. 15, 2015, Michael Hatcher pleaded guilty to grand theft and the trial court imposed one year of community-control sanctions (CCS) with an indefinite term in a CBCF or county jail.
- The sentencing entry stated the CCS would begin "upon his release from Lorain Correctional Institution" in a separate Lake County case, and that supervision would not begin until he returned from prison.
- Hatcher moved to vacate his sentence, arguing the court failed to make required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences; the trial court denied relief, treating the provision as not imposing a consecutive term.
- Hatcher renewed the motion citing State v. Anderson (this court), which held courts lack authority to impose CCS to be served consecutive to a prison term; the trial court again denied relief.
- The Eighth District accepted a delayed appeal and held the sentencing entry attempted to make CCS consecutive to a prison term imposed in another county, rendering the sentence void under Anderson; the sentence was vacated and remanded.
- The court also noted the sentencing entry included indefinite jail/CBCF terms in violation of R.C. 2929.16(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hatcher) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could impose community-control sanctions to be served consecutive to a prison term imposed in another county | The court merely held the CCS in abeyance until Hatcher's release; not a consecutive sentence | The sentencing entry imposed CCS to be served after his prison term, which is unauthorized and void under Anderson | The court held such an order is void: CCS cannot be imposed to run consecutive to a prison term; sentence vacated |
| Whether R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were required | R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) inapplicable because CCS are not consecutive sentences | Court erred by imposing a consecutive CCS without statutory authority or required findings | Court found Anderson controls and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) analysis irrelevant because the CCS itself was void |
| Whether res judicata bars review of the sentence | The State argued res judicata prevents reopening the sentence | Hatcher argued void sentences may be reviewed at any time | Court held void sentences are reviewable at any time (citing State v. Fischer) |
| Whether local statute R.C. 2951.07 permits CCS to pause while an offender is incarcerated | Trial court and dissent argued R.C. 2951.07 allows CCS to "cease to run" during confinement and thus the court properly deferred start | Hatcher argued the sentencing entry imposed CCS to be served consecutively after prison and thus exceeded statutory authority | Majority rejected this as a basis to avoid Anderson; dissent would have affirmed based on R.C. 2951.07 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 62 N.E.3d 229 (8th Dist.) (holding courts lack authority to impose community-control sanctions to be served consecutive to a prison term)
- State v. Fischer, 942 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio 2010) (void sentences are not precluded from appellate review and may be attacked at any time)