State v. Hill
2017 Ohio 4006
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Aaron Hill pled guilty in 2003 pursuant to an agreement to an aggregate 13-year sentence (10 years for voluntary manslaughter + 3 years firearm spec); other counts were nolled or run concurrent.
- At the plea hearing the court gave a lengthy (three-page) oral advisement that Hill would be subject to five years of post-release control and the consequences of violation.
- At sentencing the court did not orally re-advise post-release control and the written judgment entry only stated: “Defendant has been given notice of Post Release Control.”
- Hill did not appeal his plea or sentence and later completed his prison term; his supervision by the Adult Parole Authority began April 12, 2015.
- In July 2016 Hill moved to vacate post-release control and parole sanction time as void; the trial court denied the motion. Hill appealed and the appellate court reversed and ordered him discharged from post-release control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-release control was validly imposed when the sentencing entry merely stated defendant "has been given notice of Post Release Control" | State: post-release control was imposed and not void (no brief filed) | Hill: judgment entry insufficiently stated post-release control; court failed to properly impose it and entry was not corrected before his release | Court: Judgment entry wording was insufficient; post-release control term is void and Hill must be discharged because entry was not corrected before release |
| Whether a deficient post-release control entry can be corrected by nunc pro tunc after defendant completes prison term | State: (implicit) nunc pro tunc could validate | Hill: correction after release cannot subject him to post-release control | Court: Nunc pro tunc correction must occur before completion of the prison term; after release post-release control cannot be imposed |
| Whether an agreed-upon sentence waives challenge to defective post-release control | State: (implicit) waiver applies to agreed sentences | Hill: even agreed sentences can be challenged if they omit mandatory statutory provisions | Court: Agreed sentence does not bar collateral review of a void post-release control omission; mandatory provisions must be satisfied |
| Remedy when advisement given at hearing but omitted from journal entry | State: (implicit alternative) correct by nunc pro tunc | Hill: if not corrected in time, post-release control cannot attach | Court: If oral advisement occurred but entry omitted, nunc pro tunc suffices only if done before release; otherwise post-release control is unenforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jordan, 817 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio 2004) (trial court must notify defendant of post-release control and include notice in journal entry)
- State v. Fischer, 942 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio 2010) (failure to impose statutorily mandated post-release control renders that part of the sentence void; void sentences reviewable at any time)
- State v. Qualls, 967 N.E.2d 718 (Ohio 2012) (if advisement not given at sentencing hearing, new sentencing hearing is required unless defendant has completed his prison term)
- State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 943 N.E.2d 1010 (Ohio 2011) (failure to include post-release control in journal entry may be a clerical error correctable by nunc pro tunc)
- State v. Bloomer, 909 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio 2009) (if defendant has completed sentence, court cannot impose post-release control by holding a new sentencing)
- State v. Bezak, 868 N.E.2d 961 (Ohio 2007) (void sentences not insulated by res judicata; sentencing defects subject to review)
- State v. Simpkins, 884 N.E.2d 568 (Ohio 2008) (trial court must impose lawful sentences and follow mandatory statutory provisions)
- State v. Underwood, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (agreed-upon sentence is appealable if it fails to include mandatory provisions and thus is not "authorized by law")