STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DAVID MACE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
No. 100779
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
July 10, 2014
[Cite as State v. Mace, 2014-Ohio-3040.]
BEFORE: Jones, P.J., Blackmon, J., and E.T. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION; JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED; Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-03-438520-A; RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 10, 2014
Timothy Young
State Public Defender
BY: Kristopher A. Haines
Assistant Public Defender
Ohio Public Defender‘s Office
250 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
Columbus, Ohio 43215
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Diane Smilanick
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} In this accelerated appeal,1 defendant-appellant David Mace appeals from the trial court‘s November 2013 judgment denying his motion to terminate postrelease control. We affirm, but remand for further proceedings.
{¶2} In 2003, Mace was sentenced to a ten-year prison term for 24 counts of gross sexual imposition and two counts of attempted gross sexual imposition. The sentencing judgment entry stated the following in regard to postrelease control: “Post release control is part of this prison sentence for the maximum period allowed for the above felony(s) under
{¶3} In March 2013, Mace finished serving his sentence in this case. In August 2013, he filed a motion to terminate postrelease control, which the trial court denied. He challenges that denial in his sole assignment of error.
{¶4} Mace cites State v. Douse, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98249, 2013-Ohio-254, in support of his contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to terminate postrelease control. In Douse, this court reversed the trial court‘s judgment denying the defendant‘s motion to vacate postrelease control. The defendant there had been sentenced to a 13-year term. In regard to postrelease control, the sentencing entry stated the following: “‘Postrelease control is part of this prison sentence for the maximum period allowed for the above felony under
{¶6} This court reversed, stating the following:
The trial court‘s imposition of postrelease control was invalid because the court failed to order the postrelease control for the mandatory five years. State v. Stallings, 8th Dist. [Cuyahoga] No. 97480, 2012-Ohio-2925 (postrelease control void because trial court failed to impose five-year mandatory sentence in journal entry). “[I]n the absence of a proper sentencing entry imposing postrelease control, the parole board‘s imposition of postrelease control cannot be enforced.” State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200, 2009-Ohio-2462, 909 N.E.2d 1254.
{¶7} But this court further held that, because the defendant had already served his sentence, the error could not be corrected:
It is well settled that once the sentence for the offense that carries postrelease control has been served, the court can no longer correct sentencing errors by resentencing. State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961, ¶ 18, rev‘d in part on other grounds by, Fischer;2 Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395, 2006-Ohio-126, 844 N.E.2d 301, ¶ 32; State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568.
Thus, because Douse has already completed his sentence, he “cannot be subjected to another sentencing hearing to correct the trial court‘s flawed imposition of postrelease control.” Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200, 2009-Ohio-2462, 909 N.E.2d 1254, at ¶ 70. * * * Accordingly, we sustain the sole assigned error and reverse the trial court‘s decision. Douse‘s postrelease control is vacated, and this case is remanded for the trial court to note on its record that Douse cannot be resentenced and thus is not subject to
postrelease control.
(Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 13-14.
{¶8} The state contends, however, that an oral advisement of the specific term for postrelease control made at sentencing is sufficient. Because Mace has not made the sentencing transcript part of the record on appeal, the state contends that we must presume regularity; that is, that Mace was advised at sentencing of the specific period of postrelease control. To support its position, the state cites this court‘s decisions in State v. Hill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96923, 2012-Ohio-2306 and State v. Peterson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96958, 2012-Ohio-87.
{¶9} Hill and Peterson involved advisements in the sentencing judgment entry similar to the advisement given in this case. There, as here, the defendants did not make the sentencing transcript part of the record on appeal and this court did hold that, in the absence of the sentencing transcript, regularity is presumed.
{¶10} In Peterson, because the defendant had finished serving his sentence and, therefore, could not be subject to resentencing for correction of the imposition of postrelease control, this court held that the trial court properly denied the defendant‘s motion to vacate the sentencing journal entry and judgment of conviction. This court ordered, however, that
[n]onetheless, in order that its record may be complete, the trial court is instructed to note on the record of [defendant‘s] sentence that because he has completed the prison term for the [convictions], he will not be subjected to post-release control pursuant to our decision.
Id. at ¶ 14-15, citing State v. Brown, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95086, 2011-Ohio-345.
{¶11} In light of the above, the trial court‘s judgment is affirmed, but the case is
{¶12} Judgment affirmed; case remanded for further proceedings.
It is ordered that appellant and appellee split the costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR