2011 Ohio 3059
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- 1997 indictment for two counts aggravated murder and one count aggravated burglary with a three-year firearm specification; pleaded guilty to amended counts of involuntary manslaughter, felonious assault, and aggravated burglary with only Count 1 carrying a firearm specification; original sentence totaled 25 years (10+3+2+10) and was entered consecutively; no direct appeal of the conviction; motions to withdraw plea in 1998 and 1999 denied; 2009 motion for a new sentencing hearing alleging PRC issues denied and appeal dismissed as untimely in 2010; 2010 resentencing conducted to correct a mis-entry separating base involuntary manslaughter term from firearm specification, while maintaining total 25 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delay in resentencing voided the original sentence | Santiago argues the delay rendered the sentence void. | Santiago argues due to void sentence, he is entitled to fresh sentencing. | The delay does not render the original sentence void; limited resentencing to correct postrelease control error standard. |
| Whether a de novo sentencing was warranted due to void sentencing | Santiago contends 1997 sentence void, requiring de novo sentencing. | Santiago asserts entitlement to new sentencing with potential lesser sentence. | De novo sentencing not warranted; limited resentencing to proper postrelease control only. |
| Whether res judicata bars consideration of allied offenses at sentencing | Santiago argues for merger/allied offense review before sentencing. | Santiago did not pursue allied offenses on direct appeal; thus barred by res judicata. | Res judicata bars the argument; no merger hearing required. |
| Whether absence of judicial findings for consecutive sentences invalidates the sentence post-Foster/Ice | Santiago argues findings required by 2929.14(E) remain operative after Ice. | Hodge forecloses revival of former mandatory findings; Ice does not revive Foster defects. | Findings not required under current law; Foster remedies do not apply; assignments rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (voidity of PRC portion; limited resentencing to PRC)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (res judicata principles in sentencing)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (invalidates mandatory consecutive-sentencing findings)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010-Ohio-6320) ( Ice does not revive Foster provisions; consecutive-sentencing findings not required by pre-Ice standards)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (doctrine of res judicata in criminal appeals)