State v. Peace
2012 Ohio 6118
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Peace was indicted in 1997 on aggravated murder, conspiracy to commit murder, aggravated arson, and tampering with evidence; the State dismissed Count II and the specifications on Count I.
- Peace pleaded guilty to the remaining counts in 1998 and was sentenced in 1999 to a life term with other concurrent terms, totaling life with parole eligibility after 33 years.
- In 2011 Peace moved to withdraw his guilty plea; the court denied, and this court remanded for proper imposition of postrelease control (PRC).
- Following remand, a limited resentencing hearing to impose PRC was held on January 9, 2012 via videoconference; Peace requested counsel, which was denied as the proceeding was deemed administrative.
- The hearing also addressed multiple defense motions and Peace’s right to counsel, which the trial court did not grant; the court ultimately imposed PRC.
- The Third District reversed, vacated the PRC portion, and remanded for further proceedings, holding Peace had a constitutional right to counsel at the resentence for PRC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether videoconference resentence violated Peace's right to presence and waiver. | Peace argues the resentence via videoconference without waiver violated counsel and presence rights. | State contends the resentence was administrative and did not require counsel or physical presence. | Violates right to counsel; improper proceeding |
| Whether Peace was entitled to counsel at the January 9, 2012 resentencing. | Peace contends counsel should have been appointed for the PRC resentencing. | State argues counsel is unnecessary in a limited, administrative PRC proceeding. | Peace is entitled to counsel; denial is error |
| Whether the limited resentencing hearing was de novo or merely limited; and impact on rights. | Peace asserts the hearing should have been de novo to properly impose PRC with full rights. | State asserts the hearing was limited/administrative and not a de novo resentencing. | Defense rights require counsel; limited hearing insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) (sentencing is a critical stage; right to counsel applies)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (counsel presence protects fair trial during critical confrontations)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (postrelease-control sanctions must be imposed in accordance with statute as part of sentence)