STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEONARD EVANS, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NO. C-140503
TRIAL NO. B-0510014
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
August 12, 2015
2015-Ohio-3208
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgments Appealed From Are: Affirmed as Modified and Cause Remanded
Leonard Evans, pro se.
Please note: we have removed this case from the accelerated calendar.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Leonard Evans appeals the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgments overruling three postconviction motions. We affirm the judgments as modified, but remand for correction of errors in the imposition of postrelease control and in the statement of the sum of his prison sentences.
{¶2} Evans was convicted in 2006 of murder with a firearm specification, carrying a concealed weapon, and having weapons under a disability. He unsuccessfully challenged his convictions on direct appeal, State v. Evans, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060392 (Jan. 23, 2008), and in postconviction motions filed in 2014. He appeals here from the overruling of his May 2014 “Motion for Sentencing and Issuance of a Final Appealable Order,” June 2014 “Motion for Establishment of a Date Certain for Oral Hearing Pursuant to * * *
No Jurisdiction under the Postconviction Statutes
{¶3} In his motions, Evans contended that his judgment of conviction was void because it did not satisfy the requirements for a final appealable order, because it did not correctly state his sentence for murder or his “total aggregate sentence,” and because his sentences did not conform with the statutory mandates concerning postrelease control. He did not designate a statute or rule under which the relief sought might be granted.
{¶4} But Evans filed his motions well after the time prescribed by
{¶5} The record on appeal does not, as it could not, demonstrate that but for the alleged errors, “no reasonable factfinder would have found [Evans] guilty of the offense[s] of which [he] was convicted.” See
Jurisdiction to Correct Void Portion of Sentence
{¶6} Nevertheless, a court always has jurisdiction to correct a void judgment. See State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 2006-Ohio-5795, 856 N.E.2d 263, ¶ 18-19. And Evans’s sentences are void to the extent that postrelease control was not properly imposed.
{¶7} The trial court sentenced Evans to consecutive prison terms of 15 years to life for murder and three years for the accompanying firearm specification, 18 months for carrying a concealed weapon, and five years for having weapons under a disability. The court also, at sentencing and in the judgment of conviction, imposed a mandatory five-year period of postrelease control.
{¶8} Evans’s judgment of conviction was not, as he insists, subject to correction as void on the grounds that it lacked finality or improperly sentenced him for murder. The judgment satisfied the requirements for a final appealable order. See
{¶9} But Evans’s sentences are void to the extent that the trial court failed to properly impose postrelease control. The postrelease-control statutes in effect in 2006, when Evans was sentenced, provided that a prison sentence imposed for a felony that is classified by degrees must “include a requirement that the offender be subject to a period of post-release control.” And the statutes required that the offender be notified, both at the sentencing hearing and in the judgment of conviction, of the length and mandatory or discretionary nature of postrelease control, of the consequences of violating postrelease control, and of the length of confinement that could be imposed for a postrelease-control violation. See former
{¶10} The trial court notified Evans at sentencing that upon his release he would be subject to a mandatory period of postrelease control of five years and incorporated that notification into the judgment of conviction. But the postrelease-control statutes authorized a mandatory five-year period of postrelease control only for a first-degree felony or felony sex offense. See former
{¶11} To the extent that Evans’s sentences were not imposed in conformity with the postrelease-control statutes, they are void. And the common pleas court had jurisdiction to review and correct the offending portions of the sentences. State v. Long, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-100285, 2010-Ohio-6115.
{¶12} A court also may, at any time, correct a clerical error in a judgment.
Affirmed as Modified, but Remanded
{¶13} Evans’s postconviction motions were subject to dismissal, because the postconviction statutes did not confer on the common pleas court jurisdiction to entertain the motions on their merits. Accordingly, upon the authority of
{¶14} But Evans’s sentences are void to the extent that they were not imposed in conformity with the statutory mandates concerning postrelease control. And the judgment of conviction did not accurately state the sum of his prison sentences. We, therefore, remand this cause for correction of the offending portions of his sentences and for correction of the clerical error in the judgment of conviction, in accordance with the law and this opinion.
Judgments affirmed as modified and cause remanded.
CUNNINGHAM, P.J., FISCHER and STAUTBERG, JJ.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.