State v. Hennacy
2019 Ohio 1332
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Crystal Hennacy was indicted in two separate cases: Case A (weapons while under disability) and Case B (theft from a protected person; later supplementally charged with forgery which was dismissed). She pled no contest to the two charges and forgery was dismissed.
- Arrested July 11, 2016; indictments filed July 22, 2016 (Case A) and November 30, 2016 (Case B). Pleas entered June 4, 2018.
- Hennacy moved to dismiss both indictments for violation of speedy-trial rights; the trial court denied the motions after a May 29, 2018 hearing.
- Sentenced to 1 year (Case A) and 8 years (Case B), to be served consecutively; she appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed three assignments of error: (1) denial of speedy-trial motions, (2) legality of the 1-year sentence on the weapons-under-disability felony, and (3) failure to properly advise regarding post-release control.
- Court affirmed denial of speedy-trial relief and affirmed the sentence length as lawful, but found the trial court failed to give required post-release-control consequence advisements; vacated that portion of the sentence and remanded for a limited resentencing on post-release control.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hennacy's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying motions to dismiss for violation of the statutory speedy-trial deadline | Many continuances and delays were properly chargeable to the defense (including several continuances requested by Hennacy), so state time charged did not exceed 270 days | Calculated materially more days chargeable to the State (claimed 351 days in Case A, 303 in Case B) and thus statutory deadline was violated | Affirmed: appellants failed to show error; record shows at least 92 days tolled/charged to defense and some waivers/continuances by defendant |
| Whether a 1-year sentence for third-degree felony (weapons under disability) was unauthorized because statute lists months | The statutory term including twelve months is equivalent to one year; sentence in years is lawful | Trial court erred by imposing sentence in years and thus may have overlooked smaller month term (e.g., 9 months) | Overruled: one year equals twelve months; sentence is within authorized range and not contrary to law |
| Whether sentencing failed to include required advisements about consequences of violating post-release control | Court had given post-release-control terms but omitted advisement about possible return to prison for violations | Trial court’s advisement was incomplete, denying statutory notice required at sentencing | Sustained: State conceded error; portion of sentence relating to post-release control void; remanded for limited resentencing to impose proper advisements |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. O'Brien, 34 Ohio St.3d 7 (Ohio 1987) (speedy-trial statutory provisions coextensive with federal constitutional right)
- State v. King, 70 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1994) (defendant’s statutory speedy-trial right may be waived by counsel)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (failure to properly impose post-release control renders that portion of sentence void)
- State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio 2017) (trial court must notify offender at sentencing of post-release-control consequences)