2018 Ohio 3990
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Richard Williams was convicted in 2007 of one count of rape (life imprisonment) and multiple counts of gross sexual imposition (consecutive five-year terms); he was classified a sexual predator at sentencing.
- Williams previously entered and then withdrew an Alford plea; his convictions and earlier collateral challenges were unsuccessfully litigated on appeal and postconviction review.
- In August 2017 Williams filed pro se motions seeking resentencing and reinstatement of his Alford plea, arguing the 2007 sentencing entry was defective for: (1) failure to properly impose postrelease control, (2) failure to state that the sexual-predator finding was made pursuant to R.C. 2950.09(B), and (3) failure to determine and journalize whether he was a habitual sex offender under R.C. 2950.09(E)(2).
- The trial court denied the motions as untimely postconviction petitions and barred by res judicata, and did not address the sentencing-entry deficiencies specifically.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the motion to reinstate the Alford plea (untimely postconviction relief) but reversed the denial of the resentencing motion in part, holding that portions of the sentencing entry were defective and remanding for limited correction (nunc pro tunc) and a record-based habitual-offender determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing entry complied with R.C. 2950.09(B)(4) (must state sexual-predator determination was pursuant to R.C. 2950.09(B)) | Entry defects are clerical and can be corrected nunc pro tunc because the record shows the court made the R.C. 2950.09(B) finding | Entry omitted the statutory reference and thus is defective | Court: Entry failed to comply; however, omission may be corrected by nunc pro tunc because record shows the B( ) determination was made |
| Whether court complied with R.C. 2950.09(E)(2) (must specify whether offender is or is not a habitual sex offender) | Any omission can be corrected from the record; no new hearing required | Failure to state habitual-sex-offender status rendered that part of the sentence void and requires correction | Court: Trial court failed to comply; that portion is void and remand for determination and journaling of habitual status using the record (no new hearing) |
| Whether postrelease control was properly imposed in the sentencing entry | The deficiencies in the entry are clerical and correctable by nunc pro tunc because Williams was orally advised correctly at sentencing | Sentencing entry incorrectly stated "up to five (5) years" instead of mandatory five years, rendering postrelease-control portion void and requiring correction/remand | Court: Trial court failed to properly impose postrelease control in the entry; that portion is void and remanded for nunc pro tunc correction (no new sentencing hearing needed) |
| Whether Williams’ motion to reinstate Alford plea was an untimely postconviction petition and barred by res judicata | Motion is a postconviction petition under R.C. 2953.21 and was untimely; exceptions do not apply | Claimed ineffective assistance in withdrawing Alford plea should allow relief | Court: Motion to reinstate Alford plea was properly treated as untimely postconviction relief and was properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fisher, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (failure to properly impose postrelease control renders that portion of the sentence void)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (when defendant was properly advised of postrelease control at hearing, clerical entry errors can be corrected by nunc pro tunc without a new hearing)
- State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (2017) (a sentencing entry that refers to R.C. 2967.28 and mirrors oral advisement can validly impose postrelease control)
- State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (2013) (trial court may correct a void sanction when the prison portion of the sentence has not been fully served)
- State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (nunc pro tunc entry may correct an entry to reflect what the court actually decided)
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010) (trial court must use correct sentencing-entry language concerning prison term for violation of postrelease control)