2011 Ohio 4647
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Robb pleaded guilty in 2003 to conspiracy to murder and aggravated robbery with a weapon specification, receiving a 15-year term.
- In 2010 Robb was resentenced after the trial court failed to orally notify him of postrelease control.
- The resentencing was conducted de novo over the state’s objection, and Robb received the same sentence plus postrelease-control language.
- Robb moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, which the court denied.
- The issue on appeal was whether the postrelease-control notification de novo resentencing was proper and whether the plea-withdrawal motion should prevail.
- The court ultimately affirmed, holding the postrelease-control issue appropriate and the plea-withdrawal denial not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea withdrawal motion is valid post-sentence | Robb | Robb | Motion treated as postsentence; no manifest injustice |
| Whether resentencing complied with postrelease-control requirements | Robb | Robb | Resentencing proper and postrelease language proper; harmless error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thomas, 2011-Ohio-1331 (1st Dist. Nos. C-100411 and C-100412) (postrelease-control and plea withdrawal considerations)
- State v. Hines, 2010-Ohio-3964 (1st Dist. No. C-090754) (Crim.R. 32.1 considerations in plea withdrawal)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (scope of postrelease-control evaluation; governs void portions of sentence)
- State v. Brown, 2011-Ohio-1029 (1st Dist. Nos. C-100309 and C-100310) (postrelease-control procedures and resentencing implications)