State v. Opalach
2014 Ohio 5037
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Opalach was convicted of murder and felonious assault; felonious assault merged with murder, sentenced to 15 years to life in 2004; journal entry mistakenly included postrelease control; murder is an unclassified felony not subject to postrelease control; resentencing in 2013 corrected parole notice but not the underlying judgment.
- Opalach challenged the sentencing entry arguing noncompliance with postrelease control statute RC 2967.28(B)(2); he did not pursue prior direct appeals or collateral attacks before 2013.
- At resentencing, the court advised parole (not postrelease control) and journalized the resentencing; Opalach appeals from this resentencing order.
- Appellate court held the postrelease control statute does not apply to murder; resentencing was unnecessary and did not create a new judgment or permit new issues; res judicata bars new assignments of error not raised on direct appeal.
- Court affirmed, holding Opalach’s two ineffective-assistance arguments were not timely raised and resentencing did not revive new issues; the original sentence stood with parole notice rather than postrelease control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Opalach can raise new claims after de novo resentencing | Opalach argues resentencing allows new issues | State argues res judicata prevents new issues | Denied; no new issues permitted |
| Whether postrelease control applies to murder | State argues postrelease control may apply | Opalach argues it does not apply to unclassified felonies | Postrelease control does not apply to murder; parole supervision applicable if released |
| Whether resentencing was necessary or voids the judgment | State contends resentencing corrected error | Opalach asserts voidness of judgment | Resentencing unnecessary; corrected entry; did not void or recreate judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (void sentence only; res judicata applies to other merits)
- State v. Evans, 2011-Ohio-2153 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95692) (parole, not postrelease control, for unclassified felonies)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (postrelease control not applicable to unclassified felonies)
- State v. Lawrence, 2011-Ohio-5813 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24513) (no need to advise parole for unclassified felony)