State v. Lopez
2013 Ohio 4141
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Ronnie Lopez pleaded no-contest in 2005 to second-degree drug possession and trafficking and received concurrent eight-year prison sentences.
- Lopez unsuccessfully appealed and filed prior postconviction challenges; he was released from prison on March 7, 2012.
- In April 2012 Lopez filed a "Motion to Terminate Post Release Control," arguing his sentences were void because he had not been adequately notified of postrelease control (PRC) and therefore PRC could not be imposed or enforced.
- The Hamilton County Common Pleas Court denied the motion in June/July 2012; Lopez appealed (two appeals were filed but one was dismissed as superfluous).
- The appellate court held the motion was governed by Ohio’s postconviction statutes (R.C. 2953.21 et seq.) and that the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the late postconviction filing under R.C. 2953.23.
- The court also found Lopez’s sentences were void in part for inadequate PRC notification, but because he had already been released, the void portions could not be corrected, PRC could not be imposed, and he could not be sanctioned for PRC violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lopez’s motion to terminate PRC was a proper postconviction petition and timely | State: Motion was subject to postconviction statute; court can dismiss if jurisdictional limits not met | Lopez: He sought relief from invalid PRC notification; motion should be heard on merits | Held: Motion was a postconviction collateral attack; filed outside statutory time and R.C. 2953.23 jurisdictional gates not met, so court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it |
| Whether court could vacate or correct sentences for inadequate PRC notification | State: Court can review and vacate void portions of sentence | Lopez: Sentences are void and PRC cannot be imposed or sanctions enforced after release | Held: Court had authority to declare the PRC portion void and must set aside void portions, but correction must occur before release; since Lopez was released, PRC cannot now be imposed or enforced |
| Whether identical June and July entries both support appeals | State: Both entries are appealable orders | Lopez: Appeal from both entries is permissible | Held: The June 2012 opinion was a final appealable order; the July entry and its appeal were superfluous and dismissed |
| Remedy and record instructions after finding PRC notification defective | State: Vacate void portions and (if timely) correct judgment to impose PRC | Lopez: Request termination of PRC and note inability to be supervised or sanctioned | Held: Modify judgment to reflect dismissal of motion; remand to vacate void portions and to note on record that because Lopez completed his sentence, offending portions cannot be corrected and PRC cannot be imposed or enforced |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 942 N.E.2d 332 (2010) (void PRC portions must be set aside; correction required before release)
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200, 909 N.E.2d 1254 (2009) (if offender released, court may not impose PRC or sanction violations)
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 884 N.E.2d 568 (2008) (timely correction of PRC defects required before release)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 856 N.E.2d 263 (2006) (courts retain jurisdiction to review and correct void judgments)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 967 N.E.2d 718 (2012) (proper in-hearing PRC notice allows later clerical correction before release)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 817 N.E.2d 864 (2004) (statutory PRC-notice requirements at sentencing and in judgment)