State v. Qualls
131 Ohio St. 3d 499
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Qualls pled guilty in 2002 to aggravated murder and kidnapping; sentencing included postrelease control notice to be imposed upon release.
- The 2002 sentencing entry omitted any reference to postrelease control despite proper oral notification at the sentencing hearing.
- In 2010, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry stating that notification had been made and denied Qualls a de novo sentencing hearing.
- The Fourth District affirmed, recognizing a potential conflict with the Sixth District’s Lee decision and certified the question to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held that a nunc pro tunc entry correcting a missing postrelease-control notice (where notice was properly given at the hearing) is appropriate and does not require a new sentencing hearing.
- Dissent argued that R.C. 2929.191 requires a hearing and retroactive application should be allowed; this view would overrule Singleton and related precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a nunc pro tunc entry correct the omission of postrelease-control notice in the sentencing entry when notice was properly given at the sentencing hearing? | Qualls argued removal of postrelease-control language requires a de novo hearing; omission voids sentence. | State argued a nunc pro tunc correction is proper to reflect actual notice without a new hearing. | Yes; nunc pro tunc correction permitted; no new sentencing hearing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Womack, 128 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011-Ohio-229) (clerical errors corrected by Crim.R. 36; reflects truth of the record)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011-Ohio-5204) (correction of judgments; nunc pro tunc retroactive to reflect events)
- State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 (2010-Ohio-5705) (nunc pro tunc corrections; reflect events that occurred)
- State v. Cruzado, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006-Ohio-5795) (clerical corrections; reflects proper notification)
- Jordan v. State, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004-Ohio-6085) (require proper notification; resentencing if not)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (postrelease control; corrections limited by Bezak standards)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (limited scope of de novo resentencing post Fischer)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (retroactivity of corrections under 2929.191; discussed by majority)
- Woods v. Tell, 89 Ohio St.3d 504 (2000-Ohio-515) (principle that notification is essential; focus on notice in sentencing)