State v. Miller
2014 Ohio 18
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Curtis Miller was indicted in 2005 for burglary (R.C. 2911.12) involving a home with two children, ages fourteen and twelve.
- Convicted by a 2006 jury; sentenced to eight years; conviction affirmed but remanded for resentencing due to Foster decision.
- Resentencing occurred in 2006, again resulting in an eight-year sentence, which this court affirmed.
- In 2011 Miller moved to vacate void judgment alleging structural/jury-verdict defects and improper post-release-control notification; motion denied, affirmed on appeal.
- In May 2013 the trial court held a video-conferenced hearing to correct post-release-control advisement; Miller participated via video but declined to privately confer with counsel; court imposed three years of post-release control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Miller entitled to a physical presence at the sentencing-relevant proceeding? | Miller argues video conferencing violated Crim.R. 43(A) and constitutional presence rights. | State contends video conferencing permitted with proper notice and private communication provisions; no de novo sentencing. | Harmless error; video proceeding did not affect outcome; three-year PRC term required by statute and remained unchanged. |
| Did Miller receive ineffective assistance of counsel due to lack of private pre-hearing conference? | Ineffective assistance for not allowing private conference and for not explaining the hearing. | Defendant declined private conference; invited error doctrine bars reversal. | No ineffective-assistance; invited error doctrine applied; no prejudicial impact. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Silcott, 50 Ohio St.3d 110 (Ohio 1990) (rule fixes with Crim.R. 43(A) precedence over statutes when conflict occurs)
- State v. Hill, 73 Ohio St.3d 433 (Ohio 1995) (fundamental right to be present at critical stages; Crim.R. 43(A))
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 72 (Ohio 2011) (post-release-control correction limited to PRC, not entire sentence)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 2009) (permissible video conferencing for resentencing when mandatory PRC issue arises)
- State v. Payton, 2011-Ohio-4386 (Ohio 2011) (video conferencing recognized as acceptable after PRC issues; appellate allowed)
- State v. Dudas, 2012-Ohio-2121 (Ohio 2012) (analysis of PRC notification and video-conferencing applicability)
- State v. Dunivant, 2011-Ohio-6874 (Ohio 2011) (video procedure not structural error in PRC contexts)
- State v. Nix, 2012-Ohio-1160 (Ohio 2012) (consistency with video-conference approach in PRC matters)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1987) (right to be present when absence may affect fairness (constitutional baseline))