State v. Woods
2011 Ohio 5825
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Woods was convicted in 2003 of rape, eight counts of gross sexual imposition, and one count of kidnapping a child under 13.
- Original sentencing: life for rape, 2-year terms for each gross sexual imposition, and 3 years for kidnapping, with counts run as specified and no postrelease control advised or imposed.
- Woods appealed; appellate court affirmed; Supreme Court denied a delayed appeal.
- In 2010 Woods moved to vacate sentence, arguing postrelease control had not been imposed, prompting a resentencing hearing.
- At resentencing, the court reimposed the original sentence and added a mandatory five-year postrelease-control term only on the rape count after determining the gross sexual imposition and kidnapping sentences had expired.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life sentence for rape proper appellate bar | Woods contends due process was violated by life imprisonment for rape with a max ten-year term. | Woods argues the sentence exceeds statutory maximum and should be reviewed. | Claim barred by res judicata; life sentence proper under former statute. |
| Imposition of postrelease control on resentencing | State argues resentencing valid to impose statutorily mandated postrelease control. | No cross-appeal required; resentencing authority questioned. | Resentencing to impose postrelease control proper; Fischer governs correction of void sentence. |
| Delay in resentencing | Crim.R. 32(A) requires no delay between guilt and sentencing. | Delay here involved correcting a void sentence, not mere delay. | No Crim.R. 32(A) violation; delay was permissible to correct void portion. |
| Merger/allied-offense doctrine for rape and kidnapping | Failure to merge should have occurred; kidnapping and rape are allied offenses. | Merger challenge should have been raised on direct appeal, not resentencing. | Issue barred by res judicata; merger challenge not timely asserted. |
| Allocution at resentencing | Defendant was not given opportunity to allocute at resentencing. | Allocution is required but absence is harmless here. | Omission harmless; no prejudice given prior allocution and inevitability of outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio Supreme Court 1967) (res judicata applicability; precludes relitigation of issues in direct appeal)
- Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (misstep in postrelease-control imposition voids only the mandated portion; res judicata applies to other merits)
- Padgett, 2011-Ohio-1927 (Ohio App. 2011) (merger/allied-offense issues are res judicata on resentencing appeals)
- Poole, 2011-Ohio-716 (Ohio App. 2011) (proper avenue for allied-offense challenges is direct appeal, not resentencing)
- Hawkins, 2011-Ohio-74 (Ohio App. 2011) (allocution at resentencing may be harmless error when postrelease control is mandated)