State v. Wrenn
2011 Ohio 5640
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Marshall Wrenn was found guilty of obstructing official business, assault, resisting arrest, and pled guilty to robbery; total sentence around four years nine months.
- Post-release control notification defect prompted a December 2009 motion to terminate sentence; resentencing advised in January 2010.
- Nunc pro tunc entry on February 23, 2010 corrected language regarding post-release control.
- On May 5, 2010, Wrenn sought a final sentencing order; July 12, 2010 hearing corrected post-release control language but reduced total sentence.
- Court vacated the July 12, 2010 entry except for post-release control; original March 6, 2009 sentencing entry largely remained valid.
- Wrenn appeals, arguing ineffective assistance and lack of jurisdiction; court applies Fischer to limit review to post-release control issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging speedy trial rights | Wrenn | Wrenn | Overruled; Fischer governs scope of review |
| Whether the court lacked jurisdiction to re-sentence after 16-month delay | Wrenn | Wrenn | Overruled; jurisdiction to resent exists to correct post-release control defects |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (invalid post-release control notification voids only that portion)
- State v. Cool, 2011-Ohio-1560 (9th Dist. 2011) (de novo resentencing to fix PRE is improper; only post-release control may be corrected)
- State v. Stiggers, 2011-Ohio-4225 (9th Dist. 2011) (restraints on resentencing limits; remaining merits unaffected)
- State v. Spears, 2010-Ohio-1965 (9th Dist. 2010) (Crim.R. 32(A) applies to delay; not applicable to resentencing for post-release control)
- State v. Stallworth, 2011-Ohio-4492 (9th Dist. 2011) (further support that only post-release control issues are reviewed on remand)