2014 Ohio 3498
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2004 Lawson pled guilty to multiple sexual offenses and received an agreed aggregate prison term; the trial court orally warned him at sentencing about postrelease control consequences but the journal entry did not state those consequences (it only referenced postrelease control generally under R.C. 2967.28).
- Lawson completed his prison term for the 2004 convictions.
- In 2013 Lawson was indicted for failing to notify a change of address (sex-offender registration) and pleaded guilty; at that sentencing the court found Lawson violated postrelease control from the 2004 case and imposed 1,404 days of postrelease-control imprisonment consecutive to an 18-month sentence in the 2013 case.
- Lawson appealed, arguing the 1,404-day sanction was unlawful because the 2004 sentencing entry failed to include statutorily required notice of the consequences of postrelease control, rendering that portion of the sentence void and uncorrectable after he had completed the underlying sentence.
- The State argued oral notification at the 2004 hearing plus the journal’s reference to R.C. 2967.28 sufficed and that the court could impose the remaining postrelease-control sanction in 2013.
- The Eighth District reversed: because the 2004 journal entry omitted the consequences of violating postrelease control and Lawson had already served the 2004 prison term, the postrelease-control portion was void and could not be imposed in the 2013 sentencing; the court ordered vacation of the 1,404-day portion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could impose 1,404 days of postrelease-control sanction in 2013 based on a 2004 sentence whose journal entry omitted consequences of violating postrelease control | Oral advisement at 2004 hearing plus journal reference to R.C. 2967.28 satisfied notice; sanction in 2013 valid | Omission in 2004 journal entry rendered postrelease-control term void; because Lawson completed the 2004 sentence, the court could not later impose remaining postrelease-control confinement | The omission rendered the 2004 postrelease-control term void and, after completion of the underlying sentence, could not be lawfully imposed; vacated the 1,404-day portion and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2004) (trial court must notify defendant of postrelease control at sentencing and in the sentencing entry)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (Ohio 2012) (court must provide statutorily compliant notice of postrelease control and consequences; omission may be corrected nunc pro tunc only if done before completion of the prison term)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (a postrelease-control sentence that is void may be reviewed and corrected under certain circumstances)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2007) (sentencing errors cannot be corrected after defendant has completed the sentence for the offense carrying postrelease control)
- State v. Billiter, 134 Ohio St.3d 103 (Ohio 2012) (Fischer applies to all criminal convictions, including collateral attacks that later yield escape pleas)