State v. Lockhart
2017 Ohio 5798
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Jan. 2013 a Scioto County grand jury indicted Michael L. Lockhart on multiple counts including eight rape counts (indictment labeled them "unclassified felonies") and six gross sexual imposition counts.
- In July 2013 Lockhart pleaded guilty to three rape counts (Counts 1, 4, 8); remaining counts were dismissed.
- Trial court sentenced Lockhart to concurrent terms resulting in an aggregate sentence of 15 years to life; classified him as a Tier III sex offender and imposed five years of post-release control.
- Lockhart did not file a direct appeal; he filed various post-conviction motions and in Oct. 2015 moved for re-sentencing claiming his judgment was void. The trial court denied relief.
- On appeal, appointed counsel raised two assignments of error (post-release control voidness; involuntary plea). Lockhart submitted two pro se assignments challenging post-release notification/group sentencing and alleged “hanging charges.” The appellate court considered appointed counsel’s issues and the pro se claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lockhart) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of post-release control | Post-release control is required for first-degree felonies and felony sex offenses; sentencing entry and statute support imposition | Post-release control was improper because indictment/sentencing entry labeled offenses "unclassified felonies" and Lockhart would be subject to parole, not post-release control | Court: Rape is a first-degree felony and a felony sex offense; R.C. 2967.28(B) mandates five years post-release control; imposition was proper; assignment overruled |
| Validity of guilty plea (knowing, voluntary) | Plea was entered with counsel; any challenge to voluntariness could and should have been raised on direct appeal; res judicata bars review | Plea was unknowing/unintelligent/involuntary because of how post-release control was explained prior to plea acceptance | Court: Claim attacks a voidable (not void) plea; res judicata and law-of-the-case preclude review because Lockhart failed to raise it on direct appeal; assignment overruled |
| Notification / group sentencing (pro se) | N/A (State argues record shows sentences imposed concurrently and post-release control notified) | Trial court failed to properly notify as to each count and engaged in prohibited group sentencing, rendering sentence ambiguous/void | Court: Sentencing entry expressly states concurrent sentences and five years post-release control; plea/sentencing transcript shows notification; pro se claim lacks merit |
| Hanging charges / finality of judgment (pro se) | N/A | Counts 3,5,6,7 were not properly disposed of and remain hanging, making judgment nonfinal | Court: Sentencing entry expressly dismisses remaining counts; no hanging charges; judgment is final and appealable; claim overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Carnail v. McCormick, 126 Ohio St.3d 124 (Ohio 2010) (holds R.C. 2967.28(B)(1) mandates five-year postrelease control for first-degree felonies and felony sex offenses)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1986) (appellate courts will not consider errors not raised at a time when trial court could have corrected them)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata bars raising on collateral attack matters that were or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (establishes res judicata rule for criminal defendants)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (distinguishes void from voidable sentences and explains limits of res judicata regarding void sentences)
- Dunbar v. State, 136 Ohio St.3d 181 (Ohio 2013) (holding that claims a plea was not knowing/voluntary are errors affecting jurisdictional exercise making a plea voidable rather than void)