STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- BRADLEY E. GRIMES Defendant-Appellant
Case No. CT2015-0026
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
August 24, 2015
[Cite as State v. Grimes, 2015-Ohio-3497.]
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2013-0198 JUDGMENT: Reversed
For Plaintiff-Appellee
D. MICHAEL HADDOX Prosecuting Attorney Muskingum County, Ohio
GERALD V. ANDERSON II Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Muskingum County, Ohio 27 North Fifth St., P.O. Box 189 Zanesville, Ohio 43702-0189
For Defendant-Appellant
KRISTOPHER A. HAINES Assistant State Public Defender 250 East Broad Street - Suite 1400 Columbus, Ohio 43215
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Bradley E. Grimes appeals the April 20, 2015 Journal Entry entered by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his motion to vacate judicial sanction sentence. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
{¶2} On August 15, 2011, Appellant was convicted of one count of robbery and one count of vandalism, and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of eighteen months in Case No. CR2011-0150. The trial court memorialized the convictions and sentence via Entry filed August 17, 2011. Appellant completed his prison term and was released on December 30, 2012. He was placed on post-release control for three years.
{¶3} On September 4, 2013, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, in violation of
{¶4} On April 16, 2015, Appellant filed a motion to vacate judicial-sanction sentence, asserting post-release control in Case No. CR2011-0150 was not properly
{¶5} It is from that entry Appellant appeals, raising the following assignment of error:
{¶6} “I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIED MR. GRIME‘S MOTION TO VACATE HIS VOID JUDICIAL-SANCTION SENTENCE.”
{¶7} Preliminarily, we note this case comes to us on the accelerated calendar. App.R. 11.1, which governs accelerated calendar cases, provides in pertinent part the following:
(E) Determination and judgment on appeal
The appeal will be determined as provided by App. R. 11.1. It shall be sufficient compliance with App. R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason for the court‘s decision as to each error to be in brief and conclusionary form.
The decision may be by judgment entry in which case it will not be published in any form.
{¶8} One of the important purposes of the accelerated calendar is to enable an appellate court to render a brief and conclusory decision more quickly than in a case on the regular calendar where the briefs, facts, and legal issues are more complicated. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Association, 11 Ohio App.3d 158 (10th Dist.1983).
{¶9} This appeal shall be considered in accordance with the aforementioned rules.
{¶10} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate judicial sanction sentence as his post-release control in Case No. 2011CR-0150 was not properly imposed; therefore, was void. Specifically, Appellant submits the trial court failed to properly notify him about post-release control.
{¶11} The August 17, 2011 Entry in Case No. CR2-11-0150 provided:
The Court further notified [Appellant] that “Post Release Control” is mandatory in this case for three (03) years as well as the consequences for violating conditions of post release control imposed by Parole Board under
Revised Code 2967.28 . [Appellant] is ordered to serve as part of this sentence any term for violation of that post release control.
{¶12} Although the entry notified Appellant post-release control was mandatory for three years, the entry is silent as to the consequences of violating post-release control. The trial court failed to inform Appellant if he violated his supervision or a condition of post-release control, the parole board could impose a maximum prison term of up to one-half of the prison term originally imposed. State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, ¶ 77–79; State v. Richard-Bey, 5th Dist. App. Nos. CT2014–0012, CT2014–0013, 2014-Ohio-2923. A sentence is void if the court fails to follow the statutory mandates to impose post-release control. State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-6085.
{¶13} We find the trial court erred in denying Appellant‘s motion to vacate judicial sanction sentence based upon the aforementioned case law.
{¶14} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is sustained.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur