State v. Williams
2016 Ohio 7513
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- James J. Williams was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery (1st degree), felonious assault (2nd), tampering with evidence (3rd), having weapons while under disability (3rd), and a misdemeanor; possession count was dismissed.
- He was originally sentenced to an aggregate 10-year prison term; post-release control (PRC) was discussed at sentencing and included in the September 15, 2014 judgment entry for Counts I and II, but the trial court failed to specify PRC terms for Counts IV and V.
- This court previously found (State v. Williams, 2015-Ohio-3245) that the trial court did not properly advise Williams of PRC for Counts IV and V and remanded for correct imposition of PRC.
- At the December 21, 2015 resentencing hearing the trial court orally advised Williams that Counts IV and V carried "up to three years" of PRC.
- The December 22, 2015 resentencing judgment entry, however, stated "Post-release Control is an optional period of three years on Counts Four and Five," which the defendant challenged on appeal as incorrect/inconsistent with statutory notice requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the resentencing judgment entry correctly stated post-release control for third-degree felonies (Counts IV & V) | State: The entry properly reflected discretionary PRC "up to three years" for third-degree felonies | Williams: The entry misstates statutory notice; the court failed to properly impose PRC in the judgment entry despite correct oral notice | Court: Judgment entry incorrectly stated PRC; vacated PRC portion and remanded for nunc pro tunc correction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (trial-court PRC errors are reviewable and the PRC portion of sentence may be corrected)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007) (PRC notification errors subject to correction)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (when oral PRC notice at hearing is correct, an omission in the judgment entry may be remedied by nunc pro tunc entry)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (standard for appellate review of sentencing compliance with statutes and rules)