State v. Young
2016 Ohio 5006
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Daniel J. Young pleaded guilty in 2004 to one count of first-degree aggravated burglary and two amended third-degree robbery counts; aggregate prison term was seven years.
- The 2004 sentencing entry stated Young would be supervised under post-release control and could receive up to 50% of his original term for violations, but did not specify the statutorily required five-year PRC term.
- Young did not appeal the 2004 sentence; records indicate he completed the prison term for the 2004 conviction around December 2010 but remained incarcerated on an earlier parole violation.
- In December 2015 Young filed a pro se motion to terminate post-release control, arguing the sentencing entry failed to properly impose PRC and he was not properly notified.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the sentencing entry had provided PRC notice; Young appealed.
- The appellate court found the sentencing entry omitted the required specification of PRC length, declared that portion void, reversed the denial, vacated the PRC portion of the sentence, and remanded for the trial court to determine whether Young has completed his prison term for the 2004 case (if so, PRC can no longer be imposed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing entry's failure to state the length of post-release control renders the PRC portion of the sentence void | State/trial court: sentencing entry notified Young of PRC, so denial of motion should be upheld; PRC not yet imposed because Young remained incarcerated (ripeness) | Young: sentencing entry did not specify PRC length and he was not properly notified at sentencing; PRC therefore improperly imposed | Court: Omission of PRC term renders that portion of the sentence void; vacated PRC portion, reversed denial, remanded to determine whether Young completed his prison term (if completed, PRC cannot be imposed) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (trial court must provide statutorily compliant PRC notification at sentencing and incorporate it into the entry)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (where mandatory PRC was not properly imposed before July 11, 2006, that portion is void and must be set aside)
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (2009) (sentencing entry must notify offender of mandatory nature and length of PRC and incorporate that notification)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007) (discusses scope of resentencing when portions of sentence are void)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009) (defendant entitled to correction of sentence after hearing when PRC not properly notified)
- State v. Billiter, 134 Ohio St.3d 103 (2012) (void PRC portions are reviewable despite res judicata concerns)