State v. Jones
2011 Ohio 2929
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Jones was indicted in 2000 for aggravated murder with a firearm specification and weapon under disability with firearm specifications; he pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter with a three-year firearm specification and received a 13-year sentence (10 years incarceration plus a mandatory three-year firearm term) which this court previously affirmed; in 2010 the court vacated the sentence for improper postrelease control and remanded for de novo sentencing per Singleton; on remand (Sept. 28, 2010) the trial court reimposed the original 13-year sentence with a mandatory five-year postrelease control and declined to waive court costs; Jones timely appealed challenging the de novo requirement, ineffective assistance claims, and jurisdiction due to alleged delay; the appellate court ultimately affirmed the resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a de novo sentencing hearing was required on remand. | Jones argues the remand mandated a new de novo hearing. | State contends Fischer limited the new sentencing to proper postrelease control only. | No error; reimposition with proper postrelease control complied with Fischer. |
| Whether Jones received ineffective assistance of counsel. | Jones asserts ineffective assistance due to sentencing issues. | No proven deficiency in representation given proper resentencing. | No ineffective-assistance claim shown; no error in resentencing. |
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to sentencing delay. | Crim.R. 32 requires prompt sentencing; delay divests jurisdiction. | Delay was not sufficient to render void or violate jurisdiction; resentencing proper. | No undue delay; jurisdiction valid; sentencing affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (void sentence when postrelease control not properly imposed; remand for de novo sentencing)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (only the void portion (postrelease control) is reviewable; effect on preexisting vacatur matters)
- State v. Singleton, 129 Ohio St.3d 73 (2009-Ohio-6434) (establishes de novo sentencing on improper postrelease control for pre-July 11, 2006 sentences)
- State v. Hayden, 2011-Ohio-616 (Cuyahoga App. No. 94955) (limited applicability following Fischer decision)
- State v. Cardamone, 2011-Ohio-818 (Ohio App. 8th Dist.) (reaffirmed absence of undue delay in resentencing)