2011 Ohio 3587
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Marrero was indicted on December 7, 2001 in Cuyahoga County Case No. 417246 for multiple drug-related counts.
- On February 19, 2002 Marrero pled to one count of drug trafficking with a juvenile specification; other counts were dismissed.
- The court sentenced Marrero the same day to five years, concurrent with Case No. 417361 and consecutive to sentences in Case Nos. 403692 and 408714, totaling ten years.
- On August 20, 2010 the state moved to resentence to correct postrelease control notice; a de novo resentencing hearing followed.
- At resentencing, the court imposed five more years to run consecutively with the earlier sentences and five years of postrelease control.
- Marrero challenged the delay, the finality of the sentence, the consecutive-sentence findings, and the trial court’s jurisdiction to impose postrelease control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unreasonable delay in resentencing | Marrero argues delay in resentencing violated Crim.R. 32(A). | Marrero contends delay affected his rights due to finality concerns. | First error overruled; delay does not apply to resentencing per Fischer. |
| Resentencing violating expectation of finality | Marrero claims postrelease-control resentencing violates finality/double jeopardy. | Beasley/Simpkins line of cases permit correction without finality concerns. | Second error overruled; no finality/double jeopardy violation. |
| Consecutive sentences and findings under 2929.14(E)(4) | Marrero argues improper consecutive-sentence findings under Foster/Ice. | Ice does not revive 2929.14(E)(4) findings; arguments fail. | Third error overruled; valid application of law. |
| Trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose postrelease control after serving sentence | Marrero had completed his sentence; court could not impose postrelease control. | Consecutive sentence involved multiple cases; jurisdiction question misapplied. | Fourth error overruled; court properly addressed postrelease control in context. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (limits complete de novo resentencing to postrelease-control issues)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2007) (void postrelease-control portion; not entire sentence)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2010) (Ice does not revive 2929.14(E)(4) in re-sentencing)
- State ex rel. Carnail v. McCormick, 126 Ohio St.3d 124 (Ohio 2010) (permissible to correct sentencing even years later)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (Ohio 2006) (correcting sentence does not create double jeopardy violation)
- State v. Hunter, 2011-Ohio-1682 (Ohio 2011) (district decisions on postrelease-control resentencing)
- State v. Zganjer, 2011-Ohio-606 (Ohio 2011) (jurisdictional considerations in resentencing contexts)
- State v. Craddock, 2010-Ohio-5782 (Ohio 2010) (Crim.R. 32(A) not applicable to resentencing)