2017 Ohio 2943
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Marcus L. Sullivan was tried and convicted in 2007 of multiple felonies arising from a March 2006 shooting; he received an aggregate 16-year prison term.
- The written judgment and a post-release-control notice (signed by Sullivan) indicated a mandatory five-year period of post-release control; the trial court did not orally advise Sullivan of that five-year PRC at sentencing (though it mentioned PRC in connection with separate guilty pleas as up to three years).
- In June 2016 Sullivan moved for resentencing, arguing the court failed to properly impose mandatory post-release control because it did not give oral notice as required by statute.
- The trial court denied the motion on January 24, 2017; Sullivan appealed the denial to the Tenth District Court of Appeals.
- The Tenth District analyzed whether the totality of circumstances (written materials plus sentencing events) provided sufficient notice of post-release control and affirmed the denial, concluding Sullivan was adequately notified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sullivan was properly notified of mandatory post-release control so resentencing is unnecessary | State: Written notice and judgment entry together satisfy statutory notice requirements under the totality-of-the-circumstances test | Sullivan: Trial court failed to orally notify him of the mandatory five-year post-release control, rendering that portion of the sentence defective | Court: Affirmed — written notice (signed form and judgment entry) plus other materials sufficiently notified Sullivan of five-year PRC; no resentencing required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (portion of sentence imposing post-release control is void if not properly imposed and may be corrected)
- State v. Billiter, 134 Ohio St.3d 103 (2012) (affirming Fischer principle regarding void PRC components)
- State v. Schleiger, 141 Ohio St.3d 67 (2014) (procedures for correcting improper PRC imposition require R.C. 2929.191 hearing)
- Record Publishing Co. v. Kainrad, 49 Ohio St.3d 296 (1990) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform affected parties)
- Walker v. Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112 (1956) (constitutional notice standard — notice reasonably calculated to inform parties)