State v. Shumway
2018 Ohio 1227
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2009 Shumway pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide (Count II) and was placed on five years of community control; Count I was dismissed.
- In 2013 Shumway admitted a community-control violation, the court revoked supervision and sentenced him to four years in prison; Shumway did not appeal.
- In 2014 the court granted judicial release and returned Shumway to community control with treatment conditions.
- In April 2017 probation filed an affidavit alleging multiple violations (missed reporting, multiple positive drug screens, failure to attend ordered substance-abuse treatment).
- Shumway waived a probable-cause hearing and an evidentiary hearing, admitted the 2017 violations at a hearing on August 17, 2017, and the court revoked community control and reimposed a four-year prison term.
- Shumway appealed, arguing (1) his waiver of an evidentiary hearing was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and (2) the four-year prison term is contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shumway knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to an evidentiary revocation hearing | State: record shows advisement, counsel present, defendant admitted violations and waived hearings | Shumway: court failed to ask about education, intoxication, right to confront/subpoena/testify, and satisfaction with counsel | Waiver was valid under Crim.R. 32.3; no Crim.R. 11 requirements necessary; waiver and admission were knowing and voluntary |
| Whether the four-year prison sentence is contrary to law | State: sentence is lawful and within available options upon revocation | Shumway: sentence unsupported by record and mitigating factors; asks correction of manifest injustice despite not appealing earlier | Claim barred by res judicata because Shumway failed to appeal the 2013 revocation sentence; his argument at best alleges a voidable, not void, sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (due-process rights attach to parole/probation revocation proceedings)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (a sentence not in accordance with statutory terms is void and reviewable at any time)
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008) (distinction between void and voidable sentences; voidable sentences subject to res judicata if not appealed)
- State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (2007) (defendant with a voidable sentence is entitled to resentencing only after successful direct-appeal challenge)