State v. Vang
2011 Ohio 5010
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- In 2006, Vang was convicted of rape of a minor and gross sexual imposition, with concurrent sentencing and costs of prosecution.
- He was adjudicated a Habitual Sex Offender with a Child Victim under Megan’s Law and notified about notification and annual registration for 20 years.
- On appeal, post-conviction relief was denied, and the conviction was affirmed.
- In 2010, the trial court resentenced Vang, maintaining the same sentence but correcting the post-release control issue and reclassifying him under the Adam Walsh Act.
- During resentencing, the court did not mention court costs, and counsel did not object to the Adam Walsh Act reclassification.
- The appellate court vacated the non-post-release-control portions of the resentencing and left valid the post-release-control and Megan’s/Law classification aspects so far as they were not voided by the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether costs of prosecution were properly imposed on resentencing | Vang argues costs were improperly imposed due to lack of notice | Vang (state) asserts costs were valid under Fischer and the original judgment remains partially valid | Costs remain valid to the extent not voided; issue moot for resentencing portion |
| Whether the Adam Walsh Act reclassification was proper | Vang argues reclassification violated rights and was objected to | State contends reclassification was moot after vacatur of status | Reclassification arguments moot; status under Megan’s Law remains valid |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the Adam Walsh Act reclassification | Ineffectiveness claim due to failure to object | Weak claim since reclassification moot | Overruled as moot |
| Whether the resentencing corrected post-release control error while vacating other parts | Challenge to de novo resentencing | Court could only correct post-release control, not void unrelated portions | Judgment to the extent addressing post-release control affirmed; remainder vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (post-release control error void, scope limited to correcting error)
- State v. Johnson, 2011-Ohio-436 (9th Dist.) (de novo resentencing limited to post-release control correction)
- State v. Woods, 2011-Ohio-562 (9th Dist.) (vacates de novo portions not authorized by the correction of post-release control)
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (2010-Ohio-954) (costs and sentencing consequences informed by Fischer; res judicata effects)