State v. Henderson
2011 Ohio 1791
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Terrance Henderson was indicted for possession of marijuana, while on post-release control (PRC).
- He was convicted after a jury trial on May 8, 2007 and sentenced June 8, 2007 to five years in prison with 659 days PRC to be served as additional prison time.
- On appeal, this court affirmed the conviction and sentence in 2008.
- In November 2009 Henderson moved to correct a void sentence, asserting that the 659 PRC days were based on void advisements in related cases from Richland, Crawford, and Lorain Counties.
- The trial court denied the motion on April 27, 2010.
- The appellate court held that the related county entries did not properly advise Henderson regarding PRC, making the PRC-related portions of those judgments void and the 659 days improper as sentence time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err in imposing 659 days of PRC as prison time? | State argued PRC advisements supported the sentence. | Henderson argued PRC advisements in related cases were void, so the 659 days were improper. | Yes; improper PRC imposition void. |
| Do void advisements in other counties affect the authority to impose PRC in the case sub judice? | State contends court had authority to impose PRC regardless of other counties. | Henderson contends the other counties’ void advisements voided the PRC portion here. | Yes; related void advisements void the PRC time here. |
| What is the appropriate remedy when PRC was not properly imposed in related cases? | State seeks validation and correction within existing sentencing. | Henderson seeks de novo resentencing limited to proper PRC imposition. | Remand for resentencing; de novo hearing limited to proper PRC imposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004-Ohio-6085) (mandates notice of PRC at sentencing; failure requires remand)
- Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 (2006-Ohio-126) (PRC notice/incorporation; consequences when error discovered)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (entitled to de novo sentencing for proper PRC imposition)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (de novo sentencing required for PRC issues on pre-2006 sentences)
- State v. Fischer, 2010-Ohio-6238 (2010) (limits Bezak remedy to proper PRC imposition; no new issues)