2016 Ohio 1113
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Richard Lonero pled guilty in 2005 to two counts of gross sexual imposition and two counts of rape of a child under 13; aggregate prison term nine years; postrelease control was imposed.
- The sentencing entry referenced postrelease-control statutes but did not state the specific five-year term or use mandatory language in the written entry.
- At the 2005 sentencing hearing Lonero was verbally told he would be subject to five years of postrelease control; the sentencing transcript was not included in the record on this appeal.
- Lonero was released in February 2014 and postrelease control commenced; he moved in August 2014 to terminate postrelease control, arguing the written entry was defective for lack of specificity about duration/mandatory nature.
- The trial court denied the motion; Lonero appealed, arguing the written judgment’s lack of definite term/mandatory language invalidated postrelease control.
- The Sixth District affirmed, relying on State v. Murray and presuming, absent the sentencing transcript, the hearing properly notified Lonero about postrelease control; a statutory citation in the entry was deemed sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the written sentencing entry must state the specific term and mandatory nature of postrelease control | Lonero: written entry was defective because it did not specify the five-year term or mandatory language, so postrelease control should be terminated | State: reference to applicable postrelease-control statutes in the judgment plus presumed correctness of the unfiled sentencing hearing support imposition | Court: Affirmed. Reference to statutes in the entry and presumption of proper oral notification (given no transcript) suffice to uphold postrelease control |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Murray, 979 N.E.2d 831 (6th Dist.) (holding reference to statutes plus presumption of proper oral notification supports a postrelease-control imposition when transcript is not in the record)
- State v. Bloomer, 909 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio 2009) (discusses requirement that sentencing entries properly notify offenders of postrelease-control terms)