State v. O'Hara
2011 Ohio 3060
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- O’Hara pled guilty in Oct. 2007 to attempted felonious assault, possession of drugs, and resisting arrest; sentences were three years, six months, and 60 days, run concurrently, with three years of postrelease control noted in the sentencing journal entry.
- In July 2010, the trial court resentenced O’Hara to the same prison term and informed him of three years of postrelease control for the attempted felonious assault conviction, but did not impose postrelease control for the possession of drugs conviction.
- O’Hara appealed asserting the journal entry failed to include a postrelease control term for the possession of drugs conviction, requiring remand for proper postrelease control under R.C. 2929.191.
- TheState argued no postrelease control on the possession conviction because that sentence had expired.
- The court held that postrelease control must be connected to the expiration of the specific sentence; if the journalized sentence has expired, the court lacks jurisdiction to impose postrelease control at resentencing.
- Because O’Hara’s possession of drugs sentence expired around April 2008, the trial court lacked authority to impose postrelease control for that conviction at the 2010 resentencing, and thus correctly did not impose it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to impose postrelease control for possession of drugs requires remand. | O’Hara argues journal entry omitted postrelease control for the drugs conviction. | State contends no postrelease control because that sentence expired. | Journal entry voidable; later resolution: court lacked jurisdiction to impose postrelease control on expired sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008-Ohio-1197) (postrelease control misinclusion requires new sentencing unless sentence completed)
- State v. Dresser, 2009-Ohio-2888 (2009-Ohio-2888) (expiration of specific sentence governs jurisdiction to impose postrelease control)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (clarified procedure for postrelease control following improper imposition)
- State v. Cobb, Cuyahoga App. No. 93404 (2010-Ohio-5118) (remanded for reimposition without postrelease control when sentence expired)
- Woods v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504 (2000-Ohio-171) (trial court must inform about postrelease control at sentencing)