State v. Henley
2017 Ohio 5828
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2004 a jury convicted Brian D. Henley of kidnapping (Count I), four counts of rape (Counts II–V), two counts of felonious assault (Counts VI–VII), and attempted felonious assault (Count VIII); aggregate prison term of 22 years and sexual-predator designation.
- On direct appeal the convictions and sentences were affirmed (Henley I); subsequent collateral filings and motions were denied or dismissed over several years.
- In July 2016 Henley filed a pro se Motion to Vacate Void Judgment asserting the trial court failed to properly notify him of post-release control at original sentencing; the trial court held a resentencing hearing in October 2016 and reimposed the original sentence while adding post-release-control terms.
- The trial court imposed five years mandatory post-release control for Counts I–V (first-degree felonies) and three additional years for Counts VI–VIII; Henley objected that he had already completed the prison terms for Counts I–V and therefore the court lacked authority to impose post-release control for those counts.
- On appeal the State conceded error as to post-release control on Counts I–V; the Second District vacated the five-year post-release-control term for Counts I–V but left the remainder of the sentence and PRC for Counts VI–VIII intact.
- Henley raised multiple other claims (trial errors, ineffective assistance, void sentence/predator designation), but the court found they were either waived (not raised at the resentencing motion) or barred by res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could impose 5 years of PRC for Counts I–V at resentencing when Henley had already served those terms | State: PRC may be imposed at resentencing to correct a void sentence | Henley: Court lacked authority because he already served the prison time for Counts I–V | Court: Vacated 5-year PRC for Counts I–V because once an offender has completed the prison term for an offense, court cannot later add PRC for that offense (sustained) |
| Whether resentencing allowed Henley to relitigate underlying convictions | State: Resentencing to impose PRC does not reopen challenges to guilt/sentence elements | Henley: Cites In re Stansell to argue resentencing permits collateral challenges | Court: Stansell inapplicable here; resentencing does not permit relitigation of issues that could have been raised on direct appeal (overruled) |
| Whether multiple trial and sentencing issues raised in appeal could be considered now | State: Many claims were not raised at the resentencing motion and are barred by waiver/res judicata | Henley: Sought to raise claims of trial error, hearsay, judicial bias, ineffective assistance, void sentence, sexual-predator designation | Court: Claims not raised below are waived; those that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred by res judicata (overruled) |
| Scope of remand following partial vacatur of PRC | State: Only clerical correction required to remove PRC for Counts I–V | Henley: Argued for broader relief including ability to attack prior convictions | Court: Remanded solely to amend judgment entry to vacate PRC for Counts I–V; all other aspects affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (2013) (trial court lacks authority to impose post-release control for an offense after the prison term for that offense has been served)
- Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 (2006) (limitations on resentencing authority to add post-release control)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007) (post-release-control sentencing issues and limitations)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (resentencing to impose post-release control and scope of review for void sentences)
- Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010) (a resentencing that produces a new judgment permits a new federal habeas petition without the successive-petition gate)
- In re Stansell, 828 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2016) (resentencing to impose post-release control treated as new judgment for federal habeas; distinguished by court)
- State v. Griffin, 138 Ohio St.3d 108 (2013) (res judicata bars re-litigation of matters that were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986) (appellate courts generally will not consider errors not raised at a time when trial court could correct them)