State v. Richardson
2019 Ohio 3490
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Rhashann L. Richardson pled guilty (2004) to murder (R.C. 2903.02) and a one-year firearm specification pursuant to a plea agreement recommending 15 years-to-life plus 1 year consecutive. The plea and sentence were accepted and journalized; the plea did not include post-release control.
- The June 10, 2004 judgment entry erroneously included language notifying Richardson of the "possibility" of post-release control. No post-release control was discussed at the plea/sentencing hearing.
- Richardson did not appeal in 2004. He later filed various postconviction motions (2012, 2016, 2017) attacking plea/entry; in 2017 he moved for resentencing and to vacate the judgment on the ground the post-release control language was void.
- The trial court (Feb. 21, 2018) treated the inclusion of post-release control language as a clerical error because murder is an unclassified felony not subject to post-release control, and issued a nunc pro tunc entry removing the language; it denied Richardson’s motions.
- Richardson appealed; the appellate court affirmed, holding (1) post-release control does not apply to murder, (2) the erroneous language was clerical and properly corrected nunc pro tunc, and (3) counsel was not ineffective because Richardson showed no prejudice from the clerical error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could use a nunc pro tunc entry to remove post-release control language from the sentencing entry | The State defended the trial court’s correction as proper clerical correction | Richardson argued the sentencing entry was void; he contended due-process/Crim.R. 43 required a hearing in his presence and that the post-release-control notification violated statutory/separation-of-powers requirements | The court held the language was a clerical mistake for an unclassified felony; nunc pro tunc correction was proper and no resentencing/hearing was required |
| Whether the erroneous post-release control language rendered the sentence void | State: the language was inoperative because murder is not subject to post-release control | Richardson: the inclusion made the sentence void or ambiguous and required correction by resentencing | Held: sentence was not void; the provision had no operative effect and could be removed as clerical error |
| Whether counsel’s failure to object or appeal constituted ineffective assistance | State: counsel is presumed competent; no prejudice shown because post-release control did not apply | Richardson: counsel should have objected/appealed the inclusion | Held: no ineffective assistance—Richardson could not show prejudice (no reasonable probability he would have rejected plea) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applying Strickland to guilty-plea prejudice)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (aggravated murder is unclassified; post-release control does not apply)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (Strickland principles apply in Ohio plea context)
- State ex rel. Allen v. Goulding, 156 Ohio St.3d 337 (2019) (nunc pro tunc may be used to remove improper post-release-control language for unclassified felonies)