State v. Patrick
2013 Ohio 3821
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Ronald Patrick pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated drug trafficking (two third-degree felonies; one second-degree felony).
- At the sentencing hearing the trial court orally imposed a five-year total prison term (three years on the F-2 count concurrent with two three-year F-3 terms).
- The written sentencing entry later stated a six-year prison term and included a property/forfeiture specification.
- The State never indicted a forfeiture specification nor provided Crim.R. 7(E) notice seeking forfeiture; the State conceded it did not pursue forfeiture.
- Patrick appealed, claiming the written judgment conflicted with the oral sentence (Crim.R. 43), improperly added forfeiture (R.C. 2981.04), and that counsel was ineffective for failing to object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Patrick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the written sentence (6 yrs) that differed from the orally pronounced sentence (5 yrs) violated Crim.R. 43 | The State did not dispute the discrepancy but argued remand appropriate | The discrepancy violated Patrick's right to be present and the oral sentence controls | Court held the written entry conflicted with the oral sentence; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether including a forfeiture specification in the judgment entry was lawful where no forfeiture specification was in the indictment or notice under Crim.R. 7(E) | State admitted it did not initiate forfeiture; argued remand appropriate | Forfeiture language was invalid because the State never indicted or notified Patrick as required | Court held the forfeiture specification was contrary to law and must be removed; vacated judgment entry portion and remanded |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the sentencing entry | State did not oppose remand; effectiveness issue prudently resolved after correcting sentence | Patrick argued counsel’s failure to correct the written entry constituted ineffective assistance | Court found the ineffective-assistance claim moot because it resolved the underlying sentencing errors |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (sets two-step appellate review for felony sentences)
- State v. Nero, 125 Ohio App.3d 529 (court modified written judgment to match oral sentence in an analogous discrepancy)
- State v. Culver, 160 Ohio App.3d 172 (discusses necessity of vacating sentence and remanding where defendant not present for modified sentence)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (limits trial court’s authority to change aspects of sentence not subject to appeal)