2012 Ohio 2771
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Richardson pled guilty in 2005 to involuntary manslaughter and felonious assault with three-year firearm specifications, receiving an agreed 18-year prison term.
- On direct appeal, Richardson challenged the sentence for improper consecutive terms; the court affirmed.
- In 2009 Richardson moved to withdraw the guilty plea or for resentencing, alleging improper mandatory postrelease-control (PRC) notification.
- The trial court denied this motion; proceedings followed to reimpose PRC after Fischer v. Ohio Sup. Ct. mandate.
- A June 24, 2011 hearing reimposed PRC with noted mandatory five-year term; Richardson was represented by counsel though he indicated a desire to proceed pro se.
- Richardson appeals, asserting three assignments of error about counsel at the hearing, notice of the hearing, and the motion to withdraw the plea; the court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Richardson denied counsel at the June 24, 2011 PRC hearing? | Richardson | Richardson | No; counsel appeared and assisted; no denial of counsel. |
| Was Richardson properly notified of the PRC hearing? | Richardson | Richardson | Notice supported by May 26, 2011 entry and transport to hearing; no reversible error. |
| Did the trial court err by denying Richardson's post-sentence motion to withdraw his plea? | Richardson | Richardson | No manifest injustice; Bezak/Fischer limits apply; motion overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (defines scope of de novo sentencing for PRC)
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (2009-Ohio-2462) (PRC imposition procedures and limits)
- State v. Sneed, 8th Dist. No. 80902 (2002-Ohio-6502) (manifest injustice standard for post-sentence withdrawal)
- State v. Waite, 8th Dist. No. 96954 (2012-Ohio-489) (res judicata considerations in post-appeal issues)