State v. Teets
2016 Ohio 7274
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Paul W. Teets was convicted by a jury of aggravated murder in September 2001 and sentenced to life imprisonment on December 12, 2001; the sentencing entry (filed Dec. 14, 2001) also stated he would be subject to five years of post‑release control and ordered payment of prosecution costs.
- Teets appealed; this court affirmed his conviction and sentence in 2002.
- In March 2015 Teets filed a motion for re‑sentencing claiming portions of his sentence were void (post‑release control and lack of community‑service notice for unpaid costs); the trial court denied the motion as untimely and meritless.
- Teets appealed the denial, raising three assignments of error: (1) imposition of post‑release control rendered part of the sentence void, (2) failure to notify of community‑service consequence for unpaid costs and related ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
- The Fourth District agreed that the post‑release control portion was void because aggravated murder is an unclassified felony not subject to post‑release control, reversed in part and remanded to correct the sentencing entry by removing post‑release control references.
- The court rejected Teets’s community‑service/notice claim as barred by res judicata (it would be voidable, not void) and held appellate‑ineffective‑assistance claims were not appropriately raised in post‑conviction proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Teets) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposition of post‑release control was void | Trial court imposed sentence consistent with its authority; no relief required | Post‑release control was improperly imposed for aggravated murder (an unclassified felony), so that portion is void | Court: Post‑release control portion is void; remand to strike post‑release control language |
| Whether failure to notify that unpaid costs could lead to community service rendered sentence void | Notification requirement not raised on direct appeal; such error is voidable and barred by res judicata | Failure to give R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a) notice (and counsel’s failure to raise it) renders judgment void | Court: Claim is voidable, barred by res judicata; assignment overruled |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for procedural omissions | Post‑conviction is not the correct vehicle to raise ineffective appellate counsel; apply App.R. 26(B) | Appellate counsel failed to advise about deadlines, causing untimely filing and prejudice | Court: No merit here; should use App.R. 26(B); assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (holding that a sentence not in accordance with statutorily mandated terms is void and reviewable at any time)
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (discussing the distinction between void and voidable judgments)
- State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (doctrine of res judicata bars collateral attack on voidable sentencing errors not raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (aggravated murder is an unclassified felony to which post‑release control does not apply)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (res judicata promotes finality; prevents relitigation of issues that could have been raised on direct appeal)