State v. Morales
2017 Ohio 4273
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2004 Marcel A. Morales pled guilty to multiple felonies including two counts of aggravated robbery (first-degree), felonious assault, and kidnapping; he received an aggregate 24-year prison term with firearm specifications increasing portions to consecutive terms.
- Morales did not file a direct appeal from the original 2005 sentence. In 2011 he moved for a new sentencing hearing alleging the trial court failed to properly impose post-release control; the court resentenced him to the same prison term and added a mandatory five-year period of post-release control in an entry dated February 22, 2011.
- Morales pursued several postconviction and collateral motions, including a Crim.R. 52(B) filing and an appeal that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; this litigation history is summarized in a prior appellate opinion (Morales I).
- In December 2016 Morales filed a motion to correct post-release control claiming he was incorrectly sentenced to five years of post-release control for second-degree felonies; the trial court denied the motion and Morales appealed.
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals reviewed the 2011 resentencing record, concluded Morales was advised of the correct five-year post-release control applicable to his first-degree felonies (and that any misstatement about second-degree felonies was harmless), and found Morales’ challenge to consecutive sentencing barred by res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in imposing post-release control | Morales: he was incorrectly sentenced to a mandatory five-year PRC for second-degree felonies | State: record shows court advised Morales of the five-year PRC applicable to his first-degree convictions; any misstatement about second-degree PRC was harmless | Court: No error — defendants with multiple offenses are notified of the longest applicable PRC; court correctly imposed five years and explained violation consequences (first assignment overruled) |
| Whether consecutive sentences must be vacated for lack of statutory findings | Morales: consecutive sanctions are contrary to law because court did not make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings | State: issue was available on direct appeal and is therefore precluded by res judicata | Court: Did not reach merits; consecutive-sentence challenge barred by res judicata (second assignment overruled) |
Key Cases Cited
- (No officially reported authorities with Bluebook reporter citations were cited in the opinion.)