2018 Ohio 4958
Ohio2018Background
- Murray was sentenced in Oct. 2010 for importuning and received postrelease-control supervision; he did not appeal that sentence.
- While on postrelease control, Murray was convicted in Sept. 2011 of a new felony and sentenced to 14 months plus a consecutive 1,617-day term for violating postrelease control; he did not appeal that 2011 sentence.
- In 2016 Murray moved to vacate his 2011 sentence, arguing the 2010 sentencing entry failed to notify him of the R.C. 2929.141 consequence (that a new felony while on postrelease control can lead to a consecutive prison term).
- The dissent (DeWine, J., joined by French, J.) argues that an alleged postrelease-control notification error is nonjurisdictional and thus makes a sentence voidable, not void, so it must be raised on direct appeal and is barred by res judicata on collateral attack.
- The dissent criticizes the court’s recent holdings (notably State v. Johnson) treating postrelease-control errors as rendering sentences void, contending that approach undermines finality and allows collateral attacks years after sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a failure to notify about R.C. 2929.141 penalties renders a sentence void | Murray: lack of notification about felony consequence for postrelease control voids sentence and permits collateral attack | State: such an error is nonjurisdictional (voidable) and must be raised on direct appeal; barred by res judicata | Dissent: the error is voidable, not void; collateral attack is barred (would dismiss conflict as improvidently certified) |
| Whether Murray’s 2016 motion can overcome res judicata given no direct appeal of 2010 or 2011 sentences | Murray: postrelease-control error is an exception allowing collateral relief | State: absent timely direct appeal, relief is barred by finality and res judicata | Dissent: res judicata bars Murray’s late collateral attack |
| Whether recent Ohio precedent correctly treats postrelease-control errors as creating void sentences | Murray/majority below: prior decisions treat these errors as void at any time | State/dissent: this Court erred in treating these errors as void; it unsettles finality | Dissent: Court should reverse course and treat such errors as voidable |
| Proper remedy when postrelease-control notification omitted from sentencing entry | Murray: vacatur of subsequent sentence or other collateral relief | State: relief improper on collateral review; remedy limited to direct appeal or to specific statutory avenues | Dissent: no collateral remedy; defendant’s remedy was timely direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 122 N.E.3d 126 (Ohio 2018) (holds postrelease-control notification error can render sentence void)
- State v. Grimes, 85 N.E.3d 700 (Ohio 2017) (discusses void vs. voidable sentencing errors and res judicata implications)
- State v. Fischer, 942 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio 2010) (addresses finality of sentences and limits on collateral review)