State v. Smith
196 Ohio App. 3d 431
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- 2004: Franklin County jury convicted Smith on 12 counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor; counts 5–12 merged with counts 1–4 for sentencing, yielding an aggregate 16-year prison term and a sexual-predator designation under R.C. 2950.
- Remand and appeal: this court reversed in part and remanded for resentencing; the Ohio Supreme Court declined to review in Oct 2005; the trial court did not resentence until March 2010.
- 2010 resentencing: Smith received a five-year aggregate prison term with concurrent sentencing on Counts 1–4, but he had already served over six and a half years, and he was notified of a mandatory five-year postrelease control and classified as a Tier II offender under SB 10.
- Due-process challenge: the delay—more than four years after the stay was lifted—lacked justification and prejudiced Smith, constituting plain error that vacated the prison sentence but did not dismiss the charges.
- Post-release control: because there is no valid prison sentence, the postrelease-control order must be vacated.
- Sex-offender classification: Williams controls retroactive SB 10 application; Smith’s pre-SB10 crimes require remand for classification under pre-SB10 law, with a new hearing on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the post-remand sentencing delay violate due process? | Smith argues delay harmed rights due to prejudice. | State contends no due-process violation given permissible postremand delay. | Yes; delay violated due process; vacate prison sentence (not dismissal of guilt). |
| Was postrelease control properly imposed after vacating the sentence? | Postrelease control cannot stand without a valid prison term. | Attempted imposition of postrelease control followed from the prison term. | Vacate postrelease-control order. |
| Is Smith properly classified under SB 10 as a Tier II offender given pre-SB10 crimes? | SB 10 retroactivity should apply to existing classifications. | Bodyke not controlling; Williams bars retroactive SB 10 application. | Remand for classification under pre-SB10 law; sustain assignment." |
| Did the court err by affecting Smith's allocution right at resentencing? | Rights to allocution were implicated by resentencing procedures. | Issue moot given resolution of other errors. | Moot; no separate relief." |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (2011-Ohio-3374) (retroactivity of SB 10 barred for pre-offense conduct)
- Bodyke v. State, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (2010-Ohio-2424) (reclassification mechanism improper under separation of powers)
- Cook v. Ohio, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (1998-Ohio-410) (classification remedial, not punitive; retroactive application)
- State v. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 7 (2008-Ohio-4824) (sex-offender classification persists as civil, not punitive)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain-error standards and substantial-rights considerations)
- United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) (due-process framework for preindictment delay applied to postremand delay)
- United States v. Sanders, 452 F.3d 572 (6th Cir. 2006) (delay reasons and prejudice; government actions relevant for due process)
- Cook (supra), 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (1998) (classification remediable and civil; retroactivity considerations)