State v. West
2016 Ohio 5694
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Jason West was indicted on 27 counts arising from repeated harassment and related conduct; he pleaded guilty to 17 telecommunications-harassment counts, menacing by stalking, obstructing official business, two counts of intimidation of a crime victim or witness, and one additional intimidation count; remaining counts were dismissed on the State’s motion.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed a total prison term of 10 years and ordered three years of post-release control in its journal entry.
- The trial court failed to adequately notify West at sentencing of the consequences for violating post-release control as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) & (e).
- The journal entry imposed mandatory post-release control, but the offenses of conviction were at most third-degree felonies for which post-release control is discretionary under R.C. 2967.28(C); the oral record, however, reflected that the court had previously told West post-release control would be discretionary.
- West also challenged the court’s requesting and considering a summary of alleged jail rule violations while incarcerated, arguing the court conducted its own investigation and relied on uncharged misconduct at sentencing.
- The State conceded the post-release-control errors and the court’s record shows the trial court did not base its sentence solely on uncharged misconduct and explicitly stated it was sentencing only for the convicted offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (West) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly notified defendant of post-release control consequences | Court should have imposed valid post-release control and correct any defects on remand | Trial court committed plain error by failing to inform of violation consequences; remand for de novo resentencing | Court found notice deficient; portion of sentence imposing post-release control vacated and limited resentencing ordered |
| Whether post-release control should be mandatory or discretionary | Post-release-control issue conceded by State; correction limited to proper imposition | Court erred by imposing mandatory PRC for third-degree-felony-level convictions; PRC should be discretionary | Court sustained error to extent mandatory PRC was imposed and instructed limited resentencing to set proper (discretionary) PRC |
| Whether trial court committed structural/error by conducting its own investigation into alleged jail misconduct | Uncharged acts may be considered at sentencing if not the sole basis | Court conducted an improper investigation and relied on unproven allegations in part | Court found no improper investigation: requesting a summary of jail violations was not improper and unindicted acts may be considered if not the sole basis; assignments overruled |
| Whether consideration of alleged uncharged misconduct violated due process | Sentencing may consider unindicted/uncharged acts when not sole basis | Considering unproven allegations at sentencing violated due process and prejudiced defendant | Court held due-process challenge lacked merit because sentence was not based solely on uncharged acts; assignments overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Longo, 4 Ohio App.3d 136 (8th Dist. 1982) (trial court exceeded authority by conducting independent investigation and relying on extrajudicial information at sentencing)