State v. Ross
2012 Ohio 2433
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant-appellant Lawrence Ross was convicted in Mahoning County for aggravated murder (with death specification) and aggravated burglary at a jury trial, and separately convicted on weapons while under disability after a bench trial; he received life with parole eligibility after 30 years for the first two counts and an indeterminate term of 3–5 years for the weapons count.
- The offenses occurred February 5, 1996, in Youngstown; a police officer and neighbor observed Brown wounded, Brown died, and Ross was identified as the shooter by Brown and by others at the scene.
- Ross was indigent; in a capital case the trial court appointed two attorneys under Sup.R. 20, with Gentile as lead and Wise as co-counsel; Gentile sought to withdraw before a resentencing hearing.
- Ross sought a resentencing hearing under former R.C. 2929.19(B)(3) and objected to the court’s approach to resentencing; the court determined that pre-Senate Bill 2 law applied and thus pre-SB2 post-release control advisement did not apply to his pre-SB2 crimes.
- The trial court concluded the original sentencing entry did not comply with Baker and Crim.R. 32(C); it entered a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry to cure the defect, and later denied Ross’s speedy-trial-dispute motion as moot due to waiver; Ross appealed the rulings.
- On appeal, Ross contends multiple procedural issues, including ineffective assistance of counsel and speedy-trial arguments, which this court resolves by affirming the trial court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there error in not appointing two lead counsel in a post-indictment matter in a capital case? | Ross argued two attorneys were required in capital cases. | The appeal is not a direct capital appeal; two attorneys were not required unless death penalty imposed. | No reversible error; Sup.R. 20 requires two attorneys only when death penalty is imposed. |
| Whether Ross’s postrelease control advisement was mandated for pre-SB2 crimes. | Postrelease control should apply to his aggravated burglary sentence. | SB2 postrelease control does not apply to crimes committed before July 1, 1996. | Ross was not entitled to postrelease-control advisement; pre-SB2 crimes fall outside it. |
| Whether counsel’s failure to challenge Baker-compliance in the sentencing entry was ineffective. | Ineffective assistance for not challenging entry noncompliance. | Nunc pro tunc entry corrected Baker/Lester requirements; no prejudice. | No ineffective assistance; nunc pro tunc entry satisfied Crim.R. 32(C). |
| Whether speedy-trial issues were barred by res judicata due to waiver and prior appeal, and thus not reviewable here. | Speedy-trial concerns could be raised; waiver insufficient to bar review. | Final judgment bars claims that could have been raised; waiver and res judicata apply. | Claims barred by res judicata; speedy-trial issues not reviewable on this appeal. |
| Whether the court erred by not providing a hearing on pretrial motion to dismiss speedy-trial delay in trial given a conditional waiver. | The waiver was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made; trials continued under voir dire within time limits. | Waiver entered May 7, 1996 purportedly ended October 7, 1996; court treated claim as nullity. | Remains unavailing; res judicata bars the claims; no error merited reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (finality requires Crim.R. 32(C) elements in a judgment of conviction)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (judgment need not state manner of conviction to be final; still must show conviction, sentence, judge, and timestamp)
- State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge, 128 Ohio St.3d 236 (2011) (remedy for noncompliant sentencing entry is a revised entry, not a new sentencing hearing)
- State ex rel. Culgan v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 535 (2008) (requires Crim.R. 32(C) compliance for finality; outlines standards for sentencing entries)
- State v. Gavin, 2008-Ohio-2042 (8th Dist.) (postrelease control does not apply to pre-SB2 crimes)
- State v. Rush, 83 Ohio St.3d 83 (1998) (postrelease control interpretations and application guidance)
- State v. Staffrey, 2011-Ohio-5760 (7th Dist.) (postrelease control applies to crimes after July 1, 1996; pre-SB2 crimes not subject)
- State v. Green, 2010-Ohio-6271 (7th Dist.) (appellate res judicata principles in speedy-trial context)