State v. Lester
2010 Ohio 6066
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- Lester was indicted on five counts (robbery, abduction, theft, attempted felonious assault, aggravated menacing) in Auglaize County on January 26, 2006.
- Jury trial in May 2006 resulted in acquittal on robbery and convictions on Counts 2–5; jurors were polled after verdicts.
- Initial sentencing on July 6, 2006 imposed aggregate eight-year term with consecutive and concurrent terms and ordered restitution and costs.
- This Court remanded for re-sentencing due to inconsistent post-release control notification, and Foster-related issues were discussed in ensuing proceedings.
- A new sentencing hearing occurred August 30, 2007 with the same aggregate eight-year term, and Lester challenged Foster-based resentencing timing but the challenge was resolved by affirming the re-sentencing.
- Lester filed petitions for post-conviction relief and appeals, culminating in a nunc pro tunc entry in April 2010 correcting a sentencing entry, which was dismissed as non-appealable.
- In April 2009–April 2010, Lester sought a new sentencing hearing based on the alleged lack of jury-verdict notification under R.C. 2929.19(A)(1), which the trial court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to inform of the jury verdict voids the sentence | Lester argues notification failure voids the sentence and warrants new sentencing. | Lester contends the court had authority and obligation to re-sentence due to the error. | The error was harmless and did not void the sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (implications of Foster on necessary sentencing findings)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (voidness when statute requires certain notification or conduct)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (remedy for failure to notify post-release control)
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008-Ohio-1197) (unauthorized sentences render judgment void)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004-Ohio-6085) (purpose of truth in sentencing and informing the offender)
- State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers, 77 Ohio St.3d 449 (1997-Ohio-258) (traditionally non-jurisdictional sentencing errors; exceptions exist)