State v. Vance
2011 Ohio 780
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- In 2000, Vance pleaded guilty to two counts of gross sexual imposition and was sentenced to an aggregate 10-year term, with sexual predator designation.
- The August 2000 sentencing failed to properly impose mandatory postrelease control on those counts.
- In December 2009, the State notified the court of the postrelease-control error and requested a hearing.
- A February 2010 hearing reaffirmed the same sentence but added postrelease-control notifications; a new sentencing entry followed.
- Vance appealed claiming the 2010 proceedings did not constitute a true de novo sentencing hearing as required.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio later limited de novo review to improper postrelease-control imposition, applying Fischer to this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a proper de novo hearing was required before completion of the sentence | State contends de novo review limited to postrelease control per Fischer | Vance contends no proper de novo hearing occurred for his sentence | Bezak/Fischer control; only void portion revised; remand for amended entry |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bezak, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2007-Ohio-3250) (void sentence when postrelease control not properly imposed)
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008-Ohio-1197) (Bezak framework and remedial procedures for PRC)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (RPCR procedures under R.C. 2929.191 as of 2006)
- Fischer, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6238 (2010-Ohio-6238) (limits de novo sentencing to proper imposition of postrelease control)
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008-Ohio-3330) (one-document rule and final-appealable-order considerations)
- State ex rel. Cordray v. Marshall, 123 Ohio St.3d 229 (2009-Ohio-4986) (rights vesting and law-of-the-case considerations on direct appeal)