State v. Lofton
2012 Ohio 2274
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Lofton pleaded guilty to murder with a firearm specification and received 15 years to life for the murder count, 1 year for the firearm spec, and 5 years postrelease control.
- The January 18, 2006 Entry of Sentence on Change of Plea states Lofton would be subject to five years of postrelease control.
- On June 9, 2011 Lofton moved for resentencing, arguing improper informing about post-release consequences and seeking a new sentencing hearing.
- The trial court denied the motion on June 13, 2011.
- Lofton challenges the legality of postrelease control and asks for a de novo sentencing hearing.
- The appellate court holds that postrelease control was improperly imposed because murder is an unclassified felony, but a de novo sentencing hearing is not required; remands to remove postrelease control language from the sentencing entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postrelease control was properly imposed | Lofton asserts postrelease control applied to an unclassified felony. | Lofton's argument is that the court properly informed and imposed postrelease control. | Postrelease control improperly imposed; applicable law requires parole, not postrelease control, for unclassified felonies. |
| Whether Lofton is entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing | Lofton contends the error requires a de novo sentencing hearing. | Lofton argues for a full resentencing due to the postrelease control error. | Lofton is not entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing; remedy is remand to remove postrelease control from the entry. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Silguero, 2011-Ohio-6293 (10th Dist. No. 11AP-274, 2011-Ohio-6293) (postrelease control language void, not entire sentence, when unclassified felony)
- State v. Evans, 2011-Ohio-2153 (8th Dist. No. 95692, 2011-Ohio-2153) (remedy is to correct sentencing entry to remove postrelease control)
- State v. Fischer, 2010-Ohio-6238 (128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238) (postrelease control not voids entire sentence; only improper portion void)
- State v. Lawrence, 2011-Ohio-5813 (2d Dist. No. 24513, 2011-Ohio-5813) (parole supervision, not post-release control, upon unclassified felonies)
- State v. Clark, 2008-Ohio-3748 (119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748) (unclassified felonies do not trigger postrelease control)
- State v. Jenkins, 2011-Ohio-6924 (4th Dist. No. 10CA3389, 2011-Ohio-6924) (de novo sentencing not required where postrelease control is incorrectly included)