State v. Nia
2013 Ohio 5424
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2005, Nia was convicted of aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder and sentenced to 28 years to life.
- This court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing under Foster.
- A resentencing hearing was scheduled for May 8, 2007, but Nia was not resentenced then.
- Between 2007 and 2011, Nia pursued postconviction avenues, including a pro se motion for discharge in 2011.
- In 2012, Nia filed a writ of mandamus; the court ordered resentencing and transported him for proceedings.
- On December 19, 2012, Nia was resentenced to consecutive terms totaling 28 years; the mandamus action was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the 68-month resentencing delay violate due process? | Nia argues delay prejudiced him. | State asserts no prejudice; delay was administrative, not intentional. | Delay not prejudicial; due process not violated; first, fourth, fifth errors overruled. |
| Was there ineffective assistance of counsel due to resentencing delay? | Counsel failed to preserve appeal and protect rights during delay. | Preservation and review show no prejudice; moot after above ruling. | No reversible ineffective assistance; issue moot. |
| Did the trial court properly impose consecutive sentences under statute? | Consecutive sentences required proper statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). | Court found necessity and proportionality; but failed to state one statutory subfactor. | Remanded for de novo resentencing; failure to make required subfactor finding was reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wright, 2011-Ohio-733 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga 2011) (resentencing delay not governed by Crim.R. 32(A))
- State v. Harris, 2011-Ohio-482 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga 2011) (similar delay considerations in resentencing)
- State v. Coleman, 2011-Ohio-341 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga 2011) (prejudice analysis in resentencing delays)
- State v. Craddock, 2010-Ohio-5782 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga 2010) (resentencing delay considerations in Crim.R. 32 context)
- State v. Huber, 2005-Ohio-2625 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga 2005) (delay prejudice considerations in sentencing)