State v. Rodriguez-Baron
2012 Ohio 1473
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Convicted in 2007 of possession of marijuana (second-degree felony); sentenced to eight years in prison.
- Appellant Armando C. Rodriguez-Baron appealed his conviction after a prior appellate affirmation.
- On Aug. 27, 2010, pro se motion to correct a void sentence and request for a hearing was filed alleging improper notice of postrelease control.
- Trial court overruled the motion without a hearing.
- Appellant argues the court’s pronouncement referred to parole, not postrelease control, rendering the sentence void and entitling him to de novo sentencing.
- The judgment entry correctly imposed postrelease control but improperly stated an “up to 3 years” term for a second-degree felony; remedy discussed includes notification hearing and nunc pro tunc entry under statutory schemes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PRC was improperly imposed making the sentence void | Rodriguez-Baron | Rodriguez-Baron | Yes; improper imposition created voidness requiring proper notification |
| Appropriate remedy under Singleton and R.C. 2929.191 | State | Rodriguez-Baron | Remedy is notification hearing with nunc pro tunc entry, not de novo sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (remedial procedures for improper postrelease control)
- Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 76 Ohio St.3d 380 (1996) (journal entry controls sentencing; court of record speaks through journal entries)