State v. Mason
2019 Ohio 1773
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Roderick J. Mason pleaded no contest to multiple drug- and weapon-related felonies and was sentenced to an aggregate 16-year prison term; the trial court misstated the period of mandatory postrelease control at sentencing.
- On direct appeal this court affirmed convictions but modified the postrelease control term from three years to the statutorily required five years rather than remanding for resentencing.
- The Ohio Supreme Court declined further review. After that denial, the trial court entered a journal entry effectuating five years of postrelease control without holding a hearing or having Mason present.
- Mason moved to vacate that journal entry; the trial court denied the motion. Mason appealed, arguing (1) he was denied his right to be physically present when his sentence was modified and (2) the court impermissibly increased his sentence by adding postrelease control while he was serving his sentence.
- The appellate court held the trial court erred by failing to hold the statutorily required resentencing hearing (or otherwise allow Mason to appear) before imposing postrelease control and remanded for a limited resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could modify Mason’s postrelease control without Mason being physically present | The State: appellate modification was authorized and the trial court’s journal entry was ministerial; no hearing was required and Mason had no right to be present | Mason: Crim.R. 43 and R.C. 2929.191 guarantee a right to be present for resentencing/corrections to impose postrelease control | Court: Defendant must be given a hearing and the opportunity to be present (physically or by video) under R.C. 2929.191 and Crim.R. 43; remand for limited resentencing. |
| Whether the trial court improperly increased Mason’s sentence by adding postrelease control while he was serving his sentence | The State did not separately defend increase; argued ministerial correction | Mason: Imposition of additional postrelease control while he was serving sentence was improper without required hearing | Court: Moot after resolving first issue; remanded to vacate the April 19, 2018 entry and hold limited resentencing to impose postrelease control. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schleiger, 141 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 2014) (resentencing to impose statutorily mandated postrelease control is a critical stage requiring defendant's presence and counsel)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (appellate courts may in some circumstances correct sentencing defects without remand — limited to pre-R.C. 2929.191 cases)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 2009) (postrelease control is part of the sentence and correction procedures apply)
- Woods v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504 (Ohio 2000) (postrelease control terms are part of the actual sentence and must be imposed by the court)