State v. Williams
960 N.E.2d 1027
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant-appellant Lee D. Williams was convicted in 2001 by jury of three counts of rape and two counts of kidnapping, with kidnapping counts merged and rape counts consecutive for a 24-year sentence.
- At sentencing, the court notified Williams that post-release control would apply after incarceration and a sexual-predator finding was entered, but the record lacked a standard Prison Imposed notice.
- A 2003 resentencing merged kidnapping into rape counts and again pronounced a 24-year term, but there was no clear oral or written notice at the hearing about mandatory post-release control or its consequences.
- The 2003 judgment stated that Williams had been previously notified of post-release control, though the transcript and notices did not substantiate that oral/written notification occurred.
- Williams filed postconviction and other post-judgment motions; postconviction relief was denied, and an appeal followed over alleged improper post-release-control notification.
- The trial court and appellate courts later considered whether a de novo resentencing was required, ultimately holding that a limited resentencing hearing was appropriate to correct the post-release-control imposition under Fischer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-release control was properly imposed | Williams argues post-release control was not properly imposed due to lack of notice. | State contends the imposition complied with statutory requirements or can be corrected. | Post-release control was not properly imposed; remand for a limited hearing to correct. |
| Necessity of a de novo resentencing | Bezak/Fischer require de novo resentencing for void post-release control. | Resentencing should be limited to correcting post-release control without full de novo sentencing. | Limited resentencing hearing is required to properly impose post-release control; no full de novo resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (voidness of missing post-release control; limited new hearing)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (Bezak: Bezak doctrine on post-release-control res judicata limits)
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (2009-Ohio-2462) (notice and incorporation requirements for post-release control)
- State v. Amburgy, 2006-Ohio-135 (10th Dist. 2006) (duty to notify of post-release control at sentencing)
- State v. Spence, 2011-Ohio-3655 (10th Dist. 2011) (jury-trial defendant; notice issues and corrective procedures)