State v. Najeeb
2011 Ohio 6081
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Najeeb was indicted in two cases, CR-407801 and CR-409079, for multiple counts of rape, plus aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and felonious assault, with firearm specifications in both cases.
- On April 11, 2002, a joint bench trial resulted in Guilty findings on all counts in CR-407801; in CR-409079 the firearm specs were dismissed and one aggravated robbery count was dismissed, with remaining offenses convicted.
- On May 24, 2002, Najeeb was sentenced to seven years (CR-407801) and ten years (CR-409079), to be served consecutively, with designation as a sexual predator and postrelease control imposed for the maximum period under R.C. 2967.28.
- On July 12, 2007, Najeeb moved to vacate his sentences and seek a de novo sentencing hearing due to the court’s improper imposition of postrelease control.
- On March 18, 2011, the trial court ordered Najeeb returned for a de novo sentencing hearing and imposed postrelease control for five years on all counts, except three years for felonious assault.
- On March 25, 2011, Najeeb moved to dismiss convictions based on delay in entering a valid sentence; the trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court ultimately affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unreasonable delay in resentencing? | Najeeb argues delay in resentencing was unreasonable because original sentences were void for improper postrelease control. | Najeeb contends resentencing effectively tainted by delay caused by void sentencing, delaying remedy. | Delay not unreasonable; resentencing is not governed by Crim.R. 32(A); Fischer governs postrelease-control scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wright, 2011-Ohio-733 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (Crim.R. 32(A) delay rule not apply to resentencing)
- State v. Harris, 2011-Ohio-482 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (resentencing delays addressed outside Crim.R. 32(A))
- State v. Coleman, 2011-Ohio-341 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (re-sentencing framework post-Fischer)
- State v. McQueen, 2009-Ohio-1085 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (delays and postrelease-control considerations)
- State v. Craddock, 2010-Ohio-5782 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (resentencing timing issues)
- State v. Huber, 2005-Ohio-2625 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (timing of resentencing under postrelease-control context)
- State v. Fischer, 2010-Ohio-6238 (Ohio 2010) (limits complete de novo resentencing to postrelease-control issues)