State v. Sturgell
2013 Ohio 3518
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Sturgell indicted for breaking and entering (CR-2011-03-0715) and domestic violence (CR-2011-04-1035); pled guilty to both on May 23, 2011 and received three years of community control.
- In November 2011, Sturgell pleaded guilty to community control violations in both cases and was sentenced to consecutive prison terms (1 year for B&E and 3 years for DV) for an aggregate four-year term.
- On November 10, 2011, the trial court held a hearing to correct post-release control imposition.
- Journal entry omitted jail-time credit calculation; December 14, 2011 entry awarded 155 days of jail-time credit; Sturgell sought additional credit (32 days) on December 22, 2011, which the court never ruled on.
- Sturgell moved August 13, 2011 to correct his sentence arguing lack of required findings under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; motion denied August 20, 2011; appeal followed with delayed appeal on May 23, 2011 sentencing entry and related entries.
- Appellate court affirmed the August 20, 2012 and May 23, 2011 judgments, held certain sentencing-related issues lacked jurisdiction or remedies, and addressed ineffective-assistance claims as moot or harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed under 2929.14(C). | Sturgell argues trial court failed to make required findings for consecutive terms. | State contends issues about November 2011 entries are outside appeal scope; ineffective-assistance claims not properly before court. | I and II overruled; appeal scope limits apply; no reversible error found. |
| Whether ineffective assistance for failing to object to consecutive sentences affects appeal. | Sturgell contends counsel should have objected to consecutive sentencing as contrary to law. | State argues issues not properly before court since November 2011 entries not appealed; omissions not reversible. | II overruled; counsel’s performance not reversible error given procedural posture. |
| Whether jail-time credit was properly calculated in sentencing entries. | Sturgell claims jail-time credit was not calculated in May 23, 2011 entry and days held should be credited. | State notes December 14, 2011 calculation occurred; any error was harmless since substantial rights were not affected. | III overruled; November 2011 entries not appealed; any May 23, 2011 error was harmless. |
| Whether ineffective assistance occurred at sentencing by failure to ensure jail-time credit was calculated. | Counsel failed to object to lack of jail-time credit calculation. | State maintains issue outside proper scope or not prejudicial to substantial rights. | IV overruled; no reversible prejudice shown; credit eventually calculated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boone, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26104, 2013-Ohio-2664 (Ohio-2013) (harmless error for jail-time credit calculation when credit later awarded)
- State v. Painter, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-04-031, 2013-Ohio-529 (Ohio-2013) (delayed appeal limitations on sentencing-entry challenges)
- State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22, 2007-Ohio-4836 (Ohio-2007) (ineffective assistance standard under Strickland)
- Crim.R. 52(A), — (—) (harmless-error standard for non-prejudicial sentencing errors)
- State v. Williams, 2011-Ohio-2641 (Ohio-2011) (remedies for jail-time credit determination)