State v. Perry
2017 Ohio 1515
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1994 Alfonsia Perry was indicted and convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; the sentencing entry stated "for the determinate period of LIFE, as provided by law."
- At the time, R.C. 2929.02(A) and former R.C. 2929.03 mandated that an aggravated-murder conviction without aggravating specifications carry life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 20 years.
- Perry’s conviction and sentence have been litigated in multiple prior appeals and postconviction motions; he filed a 2016 motion seeking resentencing as the sentence was allegedly void for failing to state parole eligibility.
- The trial court denied the 2016 motion; Perry appealed, arguing the original sentence was void for not expressly stating parole eligibility after 20 years and challenging the trial court’s characterization of his motion.
- The appellate court considered whether silence in the sentence about parole eligibility rendered the sentence void and whether res judicata barred relief, ultimately affirming the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a life sentence is void if the judgment entry fails to state parole eligibility after 20 years | State: sentence complies with law as imposed and is not void | Perry: omission of express parole-eligibility language renders sentence void and requires resentencing | Court: omission does not render sentence void because statute/administrative rule presumes life carries parole eligibility after 20 years; denial affirmed |
| Whether res judicata bars Perry’s challenge | State: res judicata may apply to late challenges to sentencing defects | Perry: his motion attacks a void judgment, which res judicata does not preclude | Court: did not decide res judicata; ruled on merits that omission was not reversible error |
| Whether the trial court erred in treating the motion as postconviction relief | Perry: court mischaracterized his motion, which sought resentencing for a void judgment | State: characterization appropriate given procedural posture | Court: rejected claim as moot because sentence is not void; assignments lack merit |
| Whether administrative or statutory provisions supply parole eligibility despite silent entry | Perry: sentencing entry controls and is silent, so eligibility not guaranteed | State: former R.C. and O.A.C. 5120-2-10(B) supply presumption of parole eligibility | Court: agreed with State that statutory/administrative law presumes parole eligibility after 20 years despite silent entry |
Key Cases Cited
- Colegrove v. Burns, 175 Ohio St. 437 (trial courts may impose only statutory sentences)
- State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (attempt to disregard statutory sentencing requirements renders sentence void)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (illegal sentences not barred by res judicata and are subject to collateral attack)
- State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 (failure to perform statutory sentencing duty can render a sentence void)