State v. Leugers
2018 Ohio 2808
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2004 Leugers pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea to multiple sexual offenses; plea paperwork stated a mandatory five-year term of post-release control.
- At the change-of-plea hearing the trial court told Leugers he would be supervised "up to five years" after prison, implying discretion; sentencing hearing contained no oral post-release-control advisement.
- The sentencing entry stated Leugers was subject to post-release control "up to 5 years." He received an aggregate 15-year prison term to be served consecutively.
- In January 2018 Leugers moved to vacate the post-release-control portion of his sentence, arguing it was void because not properly imposed; the State conceded error but the trial court denied the motion.
- The Third District reversed, holding the post-release-control term was void under Ohio precedent and remanding for further proceedings (resentence limited to post-release control if jurisdiction remains).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-release control was validly imposed | State: post-release control appears in journal entry so valid | Leugers: advisement at sentencing was required and never given; oral change-of-plea advisement used "up to" implying discretion | Court held post-release control was void because court never properly advised at sentencing and journal used "up to" |
| Whether the trial court must remand for resentencing to correct post-release control | State: (conceded error) could be corrected | Leugers: if he already served his term, court lacks jurisdiction to resentence and post-release control must be vacated | Court held remedy depends on whether Leugers completed prison term; if served, vacate; if not, remand for limited resentencing |
| Effect of using language "up to" or "may" in advisements/journal entry | State: wording sufficient | Leugers: "up to"/"may" notifies only of discretionary, not mandatory, post-release control | Court followed Davenport and Grimes: "up to" fails to notify of mandatory post-release control, making the sanction void |
| Whether res judicata bars collateral attack on post-release control | State: (not argued) | Leugers: void sentence portion is reviewable at any time | Court affirmed that void post-release-control portion is not barred and may be attacked any time |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio 2017) (sentencing entry must state whether post-release control is discretionary or mandatory, duration, and that APA will administer and violations have statutory consequences)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (when judge fails to impose statutorily mandated post-release control, that part of the sentence is void)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2004) (trial court has duty to provide notice of post-release control at sentencing; lack of notice renders sentence contrary to law)
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (Ohio 2009) (trial court loses jurisdiction to resentence to impose post-release control once prisoner has completed original term)
- State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (Ohio 2013) (reiterating loss of jurisdiction to impose post-release control after completion of prison term)
- State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 (Ohio 2016) (void portion of sentence may be challenged at any time and is not barred by res judicata)