State v. Wooden
2011 Ohio 4942
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Two 2001 incidents involved the rape and kidnapping of a thirteen-year-old girl; case later set forth in a prior decision.
- Wooden was indicted in 2001 on multiple counts: two rape, two kidnapping, two gross sexual imposition, one attempted rape, and burglary; he pled not guilty and was convicted on all counts except burglary, with a 29-year sentence and later designation as a sexual predator.
- Appeals followed the 2002 sentencing; the Ohio Supreme Court denied a delayed appeal in 2003.
- In 2006, Wooden moved for resentencing under State v. Foster; the trial court denied.
- In 2010, Wooden sought proper post-release control notification; the trial court ordered re-sentencing, which occurred in September 2010; he was informed of a mandatory five-year post-release control term and again found to be a sexual predator.
- This appeal challenges (1) whether the kidnapping indictments specified mens rea and (2) whether the delay in resentencing violated due process and speedy trial rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mens rea in kidnapping indictment | Wooden argues indictments failed to specify mens rea for kidnapping. | Wooden concedes adopted Horner approach but seeks to preserve issue via res judicata. | Assignment I overruled; indictments sufficiently alleged mens rea. |
| Delay in sentencing and re-sentencing jurisdiction | Wooden contends post-conviction delay violated due process and Crim.R. 32(A) and timeliness principles. | Court held Fischer limits re-sentencing scope to proper post-release control imposition; delay not invalidating. | Assignment II partially affirmed; proper post-release control imposed; any de novo re-sentence vacated; remaining original sentence intact. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 (2010-Ohio-3830) (approval of standard for mens rea in kidnapping claims)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata principles for relitigating issues)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (post-release control only; void portion of sentence is reformed)
- Neal v. Maxwell, 175 Ohio St. 201 (1963) (Crim.R. 32(A) delay generally permissible with reasonable time)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006-Ohio-5795) (continuing jurisdiction to correct void sentence)
- State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (1984) (principles of sentencing and post-release control)