State v. Taylor
2011 Ohio 1391
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Taylor pleaded guilty in 1997 to involuntary manslaughter, gross abuse of a corpse, tampering with evidence, and theft, with an aggregate 16-year sentence served consecutively.
- The sentence was 10 years for involuntary manslaughter, 1 year for gross abuse of a corpse, 4 years for tampering with evidence, and 1 year for theft.
- In 2009, Taylor moved to vacate the sentence for failing to advise him about mandatory postrelease control; a resentencing hearing was held in July 2009.
- At resentencing, Taylor again received the same 16-year term after the court properly advised him about postrelease control.
- An initial appeal was dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order due to a defective judgment entry; a revised entry followed, prompting this appeal.
- The court ultimately held that, under Fischer, the resentencing was limited to adding postrelease control to the original sentence and could not revisit other aspects of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars challenges to original sentence terms other than postrelease control. | Taylor argues the resentencing errors extend beyond postrelease control. | Taylor contends the original sentence contained invalid elements that could be revisited. | Assignment I and II overruled; only postrelease control is reviewable post-Fischer. |
| Whether the nine-month delay before final sentencing invalidates the sentence. | Taylor asserts delay deprived court of jurisdiction. | Delay was reasonable given appellate proceedings and clerical issues. | Assignment III meritless; delay did not divest jurisdiction. |
| Whether Fischer governs the resentencing scope and limits the court to adding postrelease control. | Beasley/Bezak line of cases should require de novo resentencing for postrelease control issues. | Fischer limits remand resentencing to proper postrelease control notice. | Resentencing limited to adding postrelease control; other sentencing elements cannot be revisited. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, --- Ohio St.3d ---, 2010-Ohio-6238 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2010) (postrelease-control notice is the void portion; remand limited to postrelease-control reimposition)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2007) (void-judgment doctrine overruled by Fischer; not controlling post-Fischer analysis)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2006) (remand hearing limited to issues found to be error on appeal)
- State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74, 471 N.E.2d 774 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1984) (void sentences for lack of postrelease-control notification (Beasley line) (overruled by Fischer))
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 920 N.E.2d 958 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2009) (Beasley line questioned/limited in subsequent Fischer decision)