State v. MaddoxState v. Maddox
William Maddox, Jr., pro se.
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, William Edward Maddox, Jr., appeals a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, journalized on August 25, 2009. The judgment denied Maddox‘s motion to vacate his sentence due to the trial court‘s failure to comply with statutory requirements for notice of postrelease control.
{¶ 3} On June 3, 2009, appellant filed, pro se1, a motion with the trial court titled “Motion for Judicial Release.” The trial court denied the motion in a judgment journalized on June 15, 2009.
{¶ 4} On July 28, 2009, appellant filed a “Motion for Determination of Unattended Bezak Proceedings.” This motion was accompanied by a memorandum in which appellant characterized his earlier motion as including “a comprehensive request for sentencing.” In the memorandum, appellant claimed that the trial court failed to comply with statutory requirements for notice of postrelease control and sought for the court to vacate his sentence. He claimed his sentence was void under the Ohio Supreme Court decisions of State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250 and State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197. Appellant also sought a hearing. We interpret the July 28, 2009 motion as a motion for resentencing based upon claimed sentencing errors with respect to notice of postrelease control.
{¶ 6} “Assignment of Error No. 1
{¶ 7} “Whether the trial court abused its discretion thereby depriving defendant/appellant due process of law when it denied ‘without hearing’ defendant‘s motion for sentencing pursuant to the provisions of State v Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94; State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21; State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420; and, State v. Holcomb, 2009 WL 1864759 (Ohio App. 9th Dist.), 2009-Ohio-3187.
{¶ 8} “Assignment of Error No. 2
{¶ 9} “Whether defendant‘s guilty plea is *[sic] unconstitutional in light of the holdings in State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575; State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106;
{¶ 10} Under Assignment of Error No. 1, appellant argues that his sentence is void because the trial court failed to provide notice of postrelease control either at the sentencing hearing or in the sentencing judgment. The sentencing hearing in this case proceeded on December 22, 1999. At that time,
{¶ 12} Absent a transcript or alternative record under
{¶ 13} Appellant also claims that the trial court failed to incorporate a notice of his postrelease control obligation into its journal entry imposing sentence. On December 29, 1999, appellant‘s sentencing entry was journalized. It records that “Defendant has been given notice under
{¶ 15} The defendant in State v. Milazo argued that the language used in the sentencing entry failed to inform him that he was subject to postrelease control under
{¶ 16} We therefore conclude that the 1999 judgment entry of the trial court met the statutory requirements to incorporate notice of postrelease control into the sentencing judgment entry.
{¶ 17} Appellant‘s Assignment of Error No. 1 is not well-taken.
{¶ 18} Under Assignment of Error No. 2, appellant challenges the validity of his no contest plea due to a claimed failure of the trial court to notify him of postrelease control prior to his change of plea. Trial courts are required to inform a defendant of mandatory postrelease control during the Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy before accepting a
{¶ 19} The state contends that the issue of the validity of appellant‘s no contest plea is not before this court because it was waived by appellant‘s failure to assert invalidity of the plea in proceedings below. Nevertheless, a trial court‘s failure to inform a defendant in the plea colloquy of postrelease control involves substantial rights and may be considered as plain error. See State v. Kinkopf (Feb. 22, 2001), 8th Dist. No. 90773, 2008-Ohio-6950, ¶ 7-14.
{¶ 20} Appellant, however, has failed to file a transcript of the plea hearing or an alternative record under
{¶ 21} Appellant‘s Assignment of Error No. 2 is not well-taken.
{¶ 22} Accordingly, we conclude that justice was done the appellant. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay costs pursuant to
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Peter M. Handwork, J. _______________________________ JUDGE
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, P.J. CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.