2014 Ohio 5036
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Mace was sentenced in 2003 to a ten-year term for 24 counts of gross sexual imposition and two counts of attempted gross sexual imposition.
- The sentencing judgment stated: 'Post release control is part of this prison sentence for the maximum period allowed for the above felony(s) under R.C. 2967.28.'
- In March 2013, after completing his sentence, Mace moved to terminate postrelease control, which the trial court denied.
- This appeal concerns whether the judgment entry imposing postrelease control for the maximum period is void when the specific period is not named in the entry.
- The en banc court previously determined such a judgment entry is void and cannot be corrected after service, leaving Mace not subject to post-release control.
- The court overruled inconsistent prior decisions and remanded to note on the record that Mace is not subject to postrelease control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the sentencing entry void for failing to specify the postrelease-control term? | Mace argues the entry is void because it did not specify the exact period. | State contends there was oral advisement of the period at sentencing and the lack of transcript should be presumed regular. | Void; sentence entry invalid without specific period. |
| Can the error be corrected after Mace completed the sentence? | Postrelease control should be corrected since the entry was flawed. | Once the sentence is served, correction via resentencing is not allowed. | Error cannot be corrected; remand to note not subject to postrelease control. |
| Does an oral at-sentencing advisement suffice to validate postrelease control when the journal entry lacks specificity? | Oral advisement should be enough to establish the period. | Lack of transcript defeats presumption of regularity; cannot rely on oral advisement alone. | Not sufficient; regularity cannot be presumed without transcript, but still void entry. |
| What is the appropriate remedy on remand? | Remand for correction to reflect non-subject status. | Remand to note on the record that Mace will not be subjected to post-release control. | Remand for the trial court to record that Mace is not subject to postrelease control. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Douse, 2013-Ohio-254 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga) (void postrelease-control imposition when no five-year term stated)
- State v. Stallings, 2012-Ohio-2925 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga) (postrelease-control void without proper five-year term)
- State v. Bloomer, 2009-Ohio-2462 (Ohio) (postrelease-control issues; cannot be corrected after service)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (principle that sentencing errors when the term is served cannot be corrected)
- State v. Fischer, 2010-Ohio-6238 (Ohio) (relevant to postrelease-control jurisprudence)
- State v. Hill, 2012-Ohio-2306 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga) (regularity presumption without transcript where advisement resembled entry)
- State v. Peterson, 2012-Ohio-87 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga) (advisement vs. transcript; regularity concerns)
- State v. Brown, 2011-Ohio-345 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga) (remedial instruction to note non-subject status when proper)