2022 Ohio 2312
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Defendant Donald E. Holycross pled guilty (negotiated plea) to two counts of receiving stolen property and one count of forgery.
- At sentencing the court imposed consecutive prison terms totaling 36 months.
- The court also imposed up to three years of discretionary post-release control (PRC).
- The trial court did not orally advise Holycross at the sentencing hearing that a PRC violation could expose him to an additional prison term of up to one-half of his original sentence.
- The written judgment entry did include the one-half additional-prison-time language.
- The State conceded the trial court failed to give the required oral advisement; the appellate court reversed the PRC portion of the judgment and remanded for resentencing limited to proper imposition of PRC, and affirmed in all other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s failure at the sentencing hearing to orally advise about the consequences of violating post-release control (including possible additional prison time up to one-half the stated term) rendered the PRC portion of the sentence contrary to law | State concedes the court failed to give the required oral advisement and that the omission was error | Holycross argues the omission made the PRC imposition contrary to law and requires resentencing on PRC | Court held the omission violated the statutory duty; reversed the PRC portion and remanded for resentencing limited to properly imposing PRC; affirmed remainder of sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grimes, 85 N.E.3d 700 (trial court must advise offender at sentencing of PRC term and consequences, including up to one-half additional prison time for violations)
- State v. Jordan, 817 N.E.2d 864 (recognizes trial court's statutory duty to notify about PRC at sentencing)
- State v. Harper, 159 N.E.3d 248 (addresses limits of Jordan; cited regarding other grounds)