State v. Neff
2012 Ohio 6047
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Neff pled guilty to two fourth-degree felonies of aggravated drug trafficking in exchange for dismissal of other charges.
- At sentencing, the court imposed two consecutive eighteen-month prison terms, a fine, court costs, and a license suspension.
- The trial court did not mention post-release control (PRC) during the sentencing hearing, though it addressed PRC in the judgment entry.
- The judgment entry stated the court had considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and included PRC language, implying PRC may be imposed.
- On appeal, Neff challenged the court’s silence on 2929.11/2929.12 at sentencing and the adequacy of PRC notice.
- The court reversed in part and remanded for a limited re-sentencing hearing to properly impose PRC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court failed to state it considered 2929.11/2929.12 | Neff argues the court did not state consideration of 2929.11/2929.12. | Neff contends lack of explicit consideration requires reversal. | No reversible error; presumed to have considered unless contrary to law. |
| Whether the sentencing court failed to provide PRC notice at sentencing | Neff asserts PRC notice was not properly given at sentencing. | Neff argues the court satisfied PRC requirements by other notices. | Error found; remand for limited re-sentencing to correctly impose PRC. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Imber, 2d Dist. Clark No. 11CA0063 (2012-Ohio-3720) (presumed consideration of sentencing statutes absent contrary showing)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (limited re-sentencing for PRC matters)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012-Ohio-1111) (trial court must provide statutorily compliant PRC notification at sentencing)