2018 Ohio 4487
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2006 Lonnie Rarden was convicted after a jury trial of multiple felonies including escape, complicity to perjury, and tampering with evidence, and was sentenced to 26.5 years. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Rarden filed multiple postconviction and collateral motions from 2008–2017 challenging sentencing procedures, postrelease-control advisements, and certain convictions; several were denied as untimely or barred by res judicata, and prior appeals were unsuccessful.
- In 2010 the trial court held a limited resentencing to correct postrelease-control advisements; Rarden continued to challenge the adequacy of that resentencing and other sentencing rulings in later motions.
- In December 2017 Rarden moved to correct an illegal sentence, claiming (among other things) improper postrelease-control notice, impermissible judicial factfinding to impose maximum and consecutive sentences, and unlawful sentence "packaging."
- The trial court denied the 2017 motion; Rarden appealed to the Twelfth District, which affirmed the denial in this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of postrelease-control advisement | State: trial court entry complied and cures any oral misstatement | Rarden: oral advisement implied mandatory PRC; requires remand for resentencing | No remand: judgment entry expressly stated PRC was optional up to three years; entry complies with Grimes exception; any oral overstatement harmless |
| Sentence packaging | State: sentencing structure lawful; concurrent/consecutive terms not improper packaging | Rarden: court illegally "packaged" sentences and combined PRC inappropriately | Overruled: no improper packaging; consecutive/concurrent imposition lawful |
| Judicial factfinding for maximum/consecutive terms | State: sentencing findings were proper or res judicata bars relitigation | Rarden: trial court made impermissible R.C. 2929.14(C)/(E) findings to impose higher sentences | Overruled: Rarden’s challenges barred by res judicata as his sentence is not void and lawful elements were already adjudicated |
| Sentence voidness/contrary to law | State: sentence is not void and comports with law | Rarden: sentencing defects render sentence void or contrary to law | Held against Rarden: sentence not void nor contrary to law; res judicata applies to these claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Grimes v. State, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio 2017) (requirements for sentencing entry when oral PRC advisement is given)
- Fischer v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (res judicata applies to lawful elements of a sentence; distinction for void sentences)
- Saxon v. State, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2006) (consecutive vs. packaging distinction; lawfulness of imposing concurrent and consecutive terms)