State v. Montgomery
2017 Ohio 4397
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2010 Montgomery pleaded guilty to kidnapping, domestic violence, and violating a protection order; the trial court imposed a 4-year aggregate prison term and post-release control.
- In 2016 Montgomery moved to vacate his post-release control, arguing he was not properly notified that committing a new felony while on post-release control could result in a consecutive prison term under R.C. 2929.141.
- The trial court denied the motion; Montgomery appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals.
- No sentencing transcript was filed on appeal; the appellate court therefore relied on the journal entry, which stated a defendant "may be subject to an additional prison term" for committing another felony while on post-release control.
- The majority held the journal language sufficiently informed Montgomery of the possibility of an additional (consecutive) prison term and affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate.
- A dissent argued the phrase "may be subject to an additional prison term" did not adequately inform Montgomery that any such additional term would be served consecutively to the new-felony sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing notification was legally insufficient because it failed to tell Montgomery a post-release-control violation by committing a new felony could result in a consecutive prison term | Montgomery: court failed to inform him he could serve a consecutive prison term for a new-felony post-release-control violation, rendering the PRC notice void under R.C. 2929.141 | State: journal entry and presumption of regularity suffice; wording "may be subject to an additional prison term" adequately informed defendant | Majority: Notice was sufficient; trial court did not err in denying motion to vacate PRC. Dissent: wording was insufficient to convey mandatory consecutive nature |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 942 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio 2010) (a sentence omitting statutorily mandated post-release control is void and may be corrected at any time)
- State v. Johnson, 72 N.E.3d 656 (Ohio 2016) (Fifth District holding that certain phrasing informing defendants post-release-control time "could be added" suffices to convey consecutive exposure)
- National City Bank v. Beyer, 729 N.E.2d 711 (Ohio 2000) (presumption of regularity applies where a transcript is not part of the record)