State v. McElroy
2017 Ohio 5856
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Johnny R. McElroy, Jr. pleaded guilty by information in three Lake County felony cases in April 2016 (two third-degree burglary-related counts and two lesser felonies).
- At sentencing on May 31, 2016, the court imposed 18 months in one 2015 case, concurrent nine-month terms in the other 2015 case, and 18 months in the 2016 case, ordering the 2015 terms concurrent to each other but consecutive to the 2016 term for a total of three years’ imprisonment.
- Each written plea agreement acknowledged the possibility that sentences could be run consecutively.
- After incarceration began, McElroy filed pro se motions asking the trial court to modify his sentences from consecutive to concurrent.
- The trial court denied the motions without a hearing on October 26, 2016. McElroy appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing before overruling his motion.
- The court of appeals held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify a valid prison sentence after incarceration began, so denial of the motions was proper and the judgments were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying McElroy's pro se motions to run previously-imposed sentences concurrently without a hearing | State: Court properly denied because it lacked authority to modify a sentence after imprisonment began | McElroy: Trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing and could modify sentences to concurrent | Court: No abuse — trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify a valid term of imprisonment once incarceration commenced, so denial without hearing was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- The opinion principally relied on appellate authority holding that, absent statutory authority or correction of a void or clerical error, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to modify a valid prison sentence after imprisonment has begun. The decision cited in-text precedents that are slip opinions and do not appear in an official reporter; no official-reporter citations were relied upon in this published opinion.