State v. Padgett
2011 Ohio 1927
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Alfonso Padgett challenged his resentencing and sought allied offenses and new sentencing.
- Original 1999 sentence: kidnapping 7 years and rape 8 years consecutive; no direct appeal at that time.
- 2008 resentencing addressed postrelease-control notice; court reaffirmed the same consecutive terms.
- 2009 Padgett moved for a new sentencing claiming kidnapping had expired and trial court lacked jurisdiction for rape sentence.
- 2010 court corrected defects, clarifying kidnapping term expired before 2008 resentencing and remainder of rape sentence to be served; postrelease control adjusted accordingly.
- Appellant raised three assignments of error on appeal from the April 8, 2010 entry, which the court affirmatively denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allied offenses merger at resentencing | Padgett argues offenses are allied under 2941.25. | Padgett contends merger should be addressed at resentencing. | Assignment rejected; res judicata and transcript absence bar review. |
| Consideration of prison conduct at resentencing | Court should consider prison conduct de novo. | Court may consider but is not required to. | Discretionary consideration; no error in not weighing prison conduct. |
| Consecutive-sentencing findings under 2929.14(E)(4) | Findings required under Foster not applicable post-Foster/Hodge. | Consecutive sentences require mandated findings and reasoning. | No reversible error; Hodge reaffirmed absence of mandatory findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (void sentence for improper postrelease-control notice; Bezak limits Bezak scope)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (limits Bezak; only offending portion void; res judicata applies elsewhere)
- State v. Poole, 2011-Ohio-716 (2011-Ohio-716) (challenge to allied offenses is through direct appeal, not resentencing)
- State v. Dillard, 2010-Ohio-1407 (2010-Ohio-1407) (merger issue; divided precedent on raising on resentencing)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata principle for issues that could have been raised earlier)
- State v. Jackson, 2009-Ohio-4995 (2009-Ohio-4995) (prison conduct may be considered de novo)
- State v. Smith, 2009-Ohio-1610 (2009-Ohio-1610) (prison conduct may be considered but not required)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) (Oregon v. Ice not revive mandatory findings; Foster not revived)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (SCOTUS; effects on state consecutive-sentencing schemes)