2022 Ohio 1662
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Defendant James Nascembeni pled guilty to failing to verify a current address under R.C. 2950.06(F) (a second-degree felony) and was sentenced on March 19, 2020 under the Reagan Tokes framework to an aggregate minimum of 2 years and maximum of 3 years.
- The sentencing hearing record stated that fines, fees, and costs were waived, but the written journal entry assessed the costs of prosecution; the plea/stating on the record also allocated extradition costs of $787.75 to the defendant.
- The sentencing entry included a three‑year mandatory postrelease control term, but the trial court did not orally state the duration of postrelease control at the sentencing hearing.
- Nascembeni appealed, later withdrawing his constitutional challenge to Reagan Tokes; the appellate court limited review to (1) whether postrelease control was validly imposed and (2) whether the journal entry correctly reflected waiver/imposition of costs.
- The court held that postrelease control was not properly imposed (vacated that portion) and remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect waiver of fines/costs while leaving extradition costs assessed as announced.
- Because Nascembeni already completed his prison term, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to resentence him to correct the defective postrelease control imposition.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Nascembeni) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postrelease control was validly imposed | Postrelease control was notified previously (plea hearing) and journalized; entry suffices | Trial court failed to state the postrelease control term at sentencing, so it was not validly imposed and journal entry cannot cure that omission | Postrelease control imposition vacated because court did not impose it at sentencing; trial court cannot resentence now because defendant served term |
| Whether journal entry correctly reflected waiver and costs | State conceded the journal entry was inconsistent and agreed remand for nunc pro tunc to reflect what the court announced | Journal entry wrongly imposed general costs despite on‑the‑record waiver; requests nunc pro tunc to correct record and reflect only extradition costs | Remanded for limited purpose: issue a nunc pro tunc entry showing waiver of fines/costs and assessment of extradition costs as stated at sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grimes, 85 N.E.3d 700 (Ohio 2017) (trial court must advise defendant of postrelease control at sentencing and journalize it)
- State v. Jordan, 817 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio 2004) (trial court is required to incorporate postrelease control notice into its journal entry)
- State v. Harper, 159 N.E.3d 248 (Ohio 2020) (addresses postrelease control and related sentencing jurisprudence)
- State v. Holdcroft, 1 N.E.3d 382 (Ohio 2013) (trial court loses jurisdiction to resentence to impose postrelease control after defendant has completed incarceration)
- State v. Bloomer, 909 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio 2009) (reaffirming limits on resentencing for postrelease control once sentence served)
- State v. Simpkins, 884 N.E.2d 568 (Ohio 2008) (same principle: no resentencing to impose postrelease control after completion of prison term)