State v. Stallings
2012 Ohio 2925
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Stallings pleaded guilty on July 26, 2004 to receiving stolen property, breaking and entering, two vandalism counts, and felonious assault of a peace officer, receiving an agreed eight-year sentence.
- In 2009, Stallings moved for de novo resentencing, contending improper advisement on postrelease control.
- The sentencing entry failed to properly notify that postrelease control would be part of the sentence; the journal entry stated postrelease control was part of the sentence but without proper statutory notice.
- Stallings completed his sentence and was released; in 2011 he moved to terminate postrelease control, which the trial court denied.
- The court of appeals held that once the sentence carrying postrelease control has been served, correction to impose postrelease control is improper; vacated postrelease control and remanded to note Stallings cannot be resentenced; not subject to postrelease control.
- Judgment reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion; costs awarded to appellee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether improper notice on postrelease control requires termination of control | Stallings | Stallings | Postrelease control vacated; cannot be resentenced |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, 920 N.E.2d 958 (Ohio Supreme Court 2009) (proper sentencing notice for postrelease control required; notice must be in judgment entry)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961 (Ohio Supreme Court 2007) (sentencing errors cannot be remedied after sentence served)
- State v. Peterson, 8th Dist. No. 96958, 2012-Ohio-87 (Ohio 8th Dist. 2012) (remedy limitations for postrelease-control errors upon resentencing)
- Woods v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504, 2000-Ohio-171, 733 N.E.2d 1103 (Ohio Supreme Court 2000) (postrelease control as part of sentence and need for advisement)