State v. Roseberry, 2012 Ohio 4115

Appellant Martha Roseberry pleaded guilty to one count of complicity to rape (first-degree felony) and one count of pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor (second-degree felony).
The rape conviction carried a sentence of ten years to life; pandering carried two to eight years; sentences were to be served consecutively.
At a 2/5/2010 sentencing, the court found victims suffered serious psychological harm and that appellant lacked complete remorse, among other factors.
Appellant was sentenced to ten years to life for rape and six years for pandering, to be served consecutively; notice issues and remand potential unresolved.
Appellant appealed arguing (1) impermissible judicial factfinding at sentencing after Foster, (2) lack of remorse as a factor, and (3) failure to notify post-release control requiring remand for post-release control proceedings.
The court vacated the sentence and remanded for a post-release control hearing under R.C. 2929.191; conviction affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court committed discretionary judicial factfinding at sentencing.	Roseberry argues Foster prohibits any judicial factfinding at sentencing.	Roseberry argues no discretion to consider factors requiring factual findings.	No reversible Sixth Amendment error; court properly considered factors under 2929.12(B).
Whether lack of remorse was a valid sentencing factor.	Roseberry contends remorse was shown in the record.	Court properly found a lack of genuine remorse based on proceedings and PSI.	Court could rely on lack of genuine remorse as a sentencing factor; no error.
Whether the court failed to notify about mandatory post-release control.	Failure to notify requires remand for proper post-release control proceedings.	Notice was not provided due to indeterminate life sentence, but notice was required.	Remand for resentencing under R.C. 2929.191 for post-release control notice.
Appropriate remedy for post-release control notification error.	Remedy should ensure proper post-release control procedure.	N/A (posits the remedy as resentencing).	Remand for resentencing under R.C. 2929.191; conviction affirmed.

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (struck mandatory judicial factfinding, preserves discretion to sentence within statutory ranges)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (S. Ct. 2004) (truth-in-sentencing limits on judicial factfinding under Apprendi family)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2004) (requires notice of post-release control in certain felony sentences)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (clarifies remedy for failure to notify post-release control (partially void sentences))
State ex rel. Carnail v. McCormick, 126 Ohio St.3d 124 (Ohio 2010) (broad application of notice requirement for post-release control)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 2009) (remedy for post-release control notice when sentencing after July 11, 2006)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (Ohio 2012) (clarifies that nunc pro tunc correction is insufficient; need 2929.191 resentencing)