State v. Jennings
2018 Ohio 3871
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In April 2008 Kevin E. Jennings was indicted for aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary, each with a firearm specification; a jury convicted him of murder and aggravated robbery plus firearm specifications.
- The trial court sentenced Jennings to 15 years-to-life on the murder count, 7 years on the aggravated robbery count, and one-year firearm specification(s), for a total of 16 years-to-life; convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- In February 2017 Jennings filed a pro se motion titled "Motion for Re-sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2967.28," arguing his sentence was partially void/contrary to law because of an alleged post-release control (PRC) discrepancy, that the murder sentence was unlawful, that jury instructions were faulty, and that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting.
- The trial court treated the filing as a postconviction petition and denied relief; Jennings appealed that denial.
- The Tenth District Court of Appeals reviewed whether the postconviction petition was properly denied, addressing (1) the legality of the 16-years-to-life aggregate sentence, (2) alleged PRC discrepancy, and (3) jury-instruction and ineffective-assistance claims subject to res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jennings) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of murder sentence length | Sentence as entered (15-to-life plus 1-year firearm) was lawful and correctly journalized | Jennings argued he was effectively sentenced to "life without parole for 16 years" and that the sentence was void | Court held sentencing entries properly imposed 15-to-life on murder, concurrent robbery term, merged firearm spec and consecutive 1-year; total 16-to-life was lawful; claim overruled |
| Post-release control (PRC) notification | Journal and transcript correctly reflect mandatory 5-year PRC for first-degree felony; any transient "up to" phrasing did not render PRC void | Jennings claimed a discrepancy between what was said at sentencing ("up to five years") and the journal entry, rendering PRC void | Court found transcript shows court corrected language to "for five years" and the journal entry and signed notice reflect mandatory 5 years; even mistaken "up to" phrasing would not void PRC; claim overruled |
| Jury instructions regarding firearm specifications | Jury instructions were proper; challenges to instructions were part of the record and could have been raised on direct appeal | Jennings argued instructions failed to permit consideration of aider-and-abettor theory for firearm spec | Court held instruction claims are barred by res judicata because they were or could have been raised on direct appeal |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to jury instructions | No postconviction relief; claim depends on trial record and therefore was or could have been raised on direct appeal | Jennings claimed counsel was ineffective for not objecting to jury instructions | Court held the ineffective-assistance claim is barred by res judicata because it could have been raised on direct appeal; claim overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (postconviction motion treatment and standards)
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (postconviction petitions reviewed for abuse of discretion; standard for upholding trial court findings)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (res judicata applies in postconviction proceedings)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (final conviction bars claims that were or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)