State v. Hutchinson
2016 Ohio 927
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Michael Hutchinson pleaded guilty in May 2012 to one count each of burglary and felonious assault in C.P. No. CR-11-555395-C and was sentenced to three years of community-control sanctions; the journal entry did not mention postrelease control.
- In February 2015 Hutchinson pleaded guilty to burglary in C.P. No. CR-14-589340-B.
- In March 2015 the trial court found Hutchinson had violated his community-control sanctions and imposed prison terms: four years in CR-11-555395-C and 36 months in CR-14-589340-B, to run consecutively (aggregate seven years).
- At the March 2015 sentencing the court advised Hutchinson he would be subject to postrelease control and included postrelease-control language in the sentencing entries imposing prison.
- Hutchinson appealed, arguing (1) the original community-control sentence was void because the May 2012 entry did not mention postrelease control, and (2) the trial court erred by imposing the maximum (36-month) sentence for the third-degree burglary in CR-14-589340-B.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of postrelease-control notice in the community-control sentencing entry rendered that sentence void | State: No error — postrelease-control notice is required only when imposing a prison term at sentencing | Hutchinson: Omission rendered the community-control sentence void, so he could not be adjudicated in violation | Court held omission did not void the community-control sentence because R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) requires postrelease-control notice only when a prison term is actually imposed at sentencing, not when community control is imposed |
| Whether the court erred by imposing a maximum 36-month term for third-degree burglary | State: Sentence within statutory range and court considered required statutes | Hutchinson: Maximum sentence was improper | Court held the 36-month term is within the statutory range for a third-degree felony and not contrary to law because the court stated it considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and made required findings for consecutive terms |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (failure to properly notify defendant of postrelease control in a prison sentence renders the sentence void)
- State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 (2004) (trial court has wide discretion to select sanctions for community-control violations; future contingencies need not be anticipated at initial sentencing)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory range)
- State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (2007) (a court's statement that it considered statutory sentencing factors suffices)
- State v. Ortiz, 185 Ohio App.3d 733 (2010) (failure to indicate postrelease-control details in an entry imposing community control did not render sentence void)