State v. Richard-Bey
2011 Ohio 3676
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant was indicted on multiple counts including aggravated robbery with firearm specification and weapon under disability.
- Appellant pled guilty to all counts in exchange for a recommended aggregate eight-year term and anticipated five years of mandatory postrelease control.
- Trial court sentenced Appellant on August 16, 2004 to eight years and imposed five years of postrelease control as a mandatory term.
- In 2010, Appellant filed a motion for de novo sentencing and sought withdrawal of plea; the trial court limited resentencing to issues concerning postrelease control.
- The September 7, 2010 resentencing entry stated postrelease control was mandatory for five years, and the judgment was appealed.
- Court of appeals affirmed, holding no de novo sentencing hearing was required beyond proper imposition of postrelease control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a de novo sentencing hearing was required | Elder argues de novo hearing necessary | State argues Fischer allows limited postrelease control issue review | No de novo hearing required; limited to postrelease control. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (postrelease control properly imposed; de novo hearing not required)
- State v. Bennett, 2010-Ohio-2236 (Ohio 2010) (Bezak remedy limited; focus on proper postrelease control imposition)
- Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (void portion of sentence for improper postrelease control; limited correction)