State v. Wells
2017 Ohio 7763
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2002 Carl Wells pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual battery (third-degree felonies) and received an aggregate 12-year prison sentence.
- The sentencing entry stated the sentence would be “followed by mandatory post-release control” and that Wells had been notified, but it did not specify the duration or spell out consequences of violation.
- Wells completed his prison term and was released in June 2014; the ODRC indicates he was subject to five years of post-release control for his sex-offense convictions.
- Wells filed multiple pro se motions (2014, 2015, 2016) to vacate or terminate post-release control; the trial court denied them and denied his third motion; he appealed the third denial.
- No sentencing-hearing transcript is in the appellate record; Wells argued the sentencing entry’s post-release control language was incomplete and therefore that portion of the sentence is void and cannot be corrected now that he has been released.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-release control portion of Wells’ sentence is void for failing to specify term length and consequences in the sentencing entry | State contended the trial court’s denial should stand (no appellee brief filed) | Wells argued the sentencing entry failed to state the duration and consequences of post-release control, rendering that portion void and requiring discharge because nunc pro tunc resentencing is not available after release | Court held the post-release control portion was defective and, because Wells already served his prison term, the proper remedy is discharge from post-release control |
| Whether Wells’ failure to file a direct appeal or earlier collateral attack bars relief | State relied on procedural posture (implicitly) | Wells contended void sentence review remains available despite lack of direct appeal | Court held res judicata does not bar review of a void sentence; relief is available at any time |
| Whether a sentencing-entry omission can be cured by nunc pro tunc entry after the defendant has completed imprisonment | State implied correction was appropriate or unnecessary | Wells argued correction by nunc pro tunc is improper once the prison term is served | Court held nunc pro tunc correction is not proper post-release; discharge is the remedy |
| Whether absence of a sentencing transcript defeats Wells’ claim | State would rely on presumption of regularity | Wells claimed entry alone is deficient regardless of the oral advisement | Court noted presumption of regularity but found the entry omitted the required term length, making discharge appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Qualls v. State, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (trial court must include postrelease control details and consequences in the sentencing entry)
- Billiter v. State, 134 Ohio St.3d 103 (a sentence omitting statutorily mandated postrelease control term is void and reviewable at any time)
- Fischer v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (only the offending portion of a sentence is subject to correction when postrelease control is omitted)
- Singleton v. State, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (procedures for postrelease-control error correction and limits on remedies for pre-2006 sentences)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (presumption of regularity applies when the record lacks a transcript)