State v. Lintz
2017 Ohio 5631
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Scott L. Lintz pled guilty in 2008 to two counts of attempted felonious assault (third-degree felonies); other counts were dismissed. The plea and oral advisement stated a mandatory three-year period of post-release control (PRC).
- The original sentencing entry incorrectly stated PRC was optional (up to three years) and failed to spell out consequences for PRC violations. Lintz did not appeal that entry.
- In 2010 the trial court held an R.C. 2929.191 hearing and issued a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the entry to show mandatory three-year PRC; the nunc pro tunc did not set out violation consequences.
- Lintz served his sentence and was released May 25, 2015; he was placed on PRC and then filed a pro se motion to vacate PRC on May 27, 2015. The trial court denied the motion.
- Lintz appealed, arguing the trial court committed plain error by failing to (1) orally advise at the resentencing/R.C. 2929.191 hearing the consequences of violating PRC and (2) journalize those consequences, rendering the PRC portion void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PRC must be vacated because the trial court failed to notify Lintz of the consequences of violating PRC at sentencing and did not journalize those consequences before release | State: The court’s nunc pro tunc corrected the optional/mandatory error and the record shows oral advisals and plea form reference; the sentencing entry (nunc pro tunc) sufficiently references R.C. 2967.28 so PRC is valid | Lintz: Trial court never provided oral advisal of violation consequences at the R.C. 2929.191 hearing nor journalized the specific consequences, so PRC portion is void and must be vacated because he completed his sentence | Court affirmed denial of motion to vacate: presumes proper oral advisal at original sentencing (no transcript filed by Lintz); nunc pro tunc entry and sentencing entry’s reference to consequences under R.C. 2967.28 satisfy Grimes standard, so PRC remains valid |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (Ohio 2012) (focus on adequacy of sentencing advisals and that notification—not the entry—is primary)
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (Ohio 2009) (statutorily compliant notification must include nature/length of PRC and consequences for violations)
- State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (Ohio 2013) (remedy for defective advisal is to provide proper advisal before completion of the prison term)
- State v. Grimes, 150 Ohio St.3d 554 (Ohio 2017) (sentencing entry need only refer to R.C. 2967.28 and state that violations will be subject to consequences set forth in that statute to be sufficient)