State of Ohio v. Michael Ray Madrid
Court of Appeals No. L-17-1299
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
Decided: May 11, 2018
[Cite as State v. Madrid, 2018-Ohio-1873.]
Trial Court No. CR0201401143
Timothy Young, State Public Defender, and Peter Galyardt, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant.
JENSEN, J.
*****
I. Introduction
{1} This is an accelerated appeal of the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, denying appellant‘s, Michael Madrid, “Motion to Vacate Void Judicial-Sanction Sentence.”
{2} The facts of this case are straightforward. On November 29, 2006, appellant entered a plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford in case No. CR0200601180 to one count of aggravated robbery in violation of
{3} On January 29, 2014, appellant was indicted on one count of possession of heroin in violation of
{4} Following pretrial discovery and plea negotiations, appellant appeared before the trial court on March 13, 2014, and entered a plea of no contest to the lesser included offense of trafficking in heroin in violation of
{5} At a sentencing hearing held on April 17, 2014, the court ordered appellant to serve 30 months in prison for the charges of trafficking in heroin and trafficking in cocaine, to be served concurrently. Additionally, the court imposed a 14-month prison sentence as to the charge for aggravated trafficking in drugs, and ordered that the 14-month sentence be served consecutive to the 30-month sentence, for a total prison sentence of 44 months. Additionally, the court found that appellant committed the foregoing offenses while released on postrelease control in case No. CR0200601180. Consequently, the court found appellant in violation of the terms of his postrelease control, and ordered appellant to serve an additional 1,361 days in prison, to be served consecutive to his 44-month prison term.
{7} On November 9, 2017, the trial court released its decision denying appellant‘s motion to vacate. In its decision, the court stated the following, in pertinent part:
10. Until the decision in Grimes, it was never designated what had to be incorporated into the sentencing entry because the notification was the primary concern. Now, the Ohio Supreme Court is applying the Grimes requirements to old cases that relied on prior decisions. Because the Ohio Supreme Court changed the law, it should have been prospective and not retroactively applied like they did in State v. Schroeder, 2017-Ohio-7858. This application of Grimes could adversely affect thousands of cases in Ohio.
11. It is interesting that
R.C. 2967.28(B) has been totally ignored by the Grimes majority. This section specifically states that the failure tocomply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2) does not negate or limit the mandatory period of post-release control. See alsoR.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) .12. It is also interesting to note that the issue could have been raised on direct appeal, and pursuant to State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104, it may have been res judicata by not raising this issue on direct appeal.
For the above stated reasons, the court in Case No. CR0200601180 properly notified the defendant of the post-release conditions and properly put the notification in the sentencing entry based upon the law at that time. This court has chosen not to apply Grimes retroactively and only hold the trial judge to the law at that time. In addition, pursuant to
R.C. 2967.28(B) , the legislature indicated that a violation ofR.C. 2929.19(B)(3) does not negate the mandatory period of post-release control. The legislature created post-release control and should control how it is imposed. For these reasons the motion to vacate or void the post-release control portion of Case No. CR0200601180 that was imposed in this case is DENIED.
(Emphasis sic.).
B. Assignment of Error
{8} Following the trial court‘s denial of his motion to vacate, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, asserting the following assignment of error:
{9} The trial court erred when it denied Michael Madrid‘s motion to vacate his judicial-sanction sentence.
{10} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate the 1,361-day sentence attributable to his postrelease control violation.
{11} We review the trial court‘s denial of appellant‘s motion to vacate de novo. State v. Brown, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2017-L-038, 2017-Ohio-7963, ¶ 8.
{12} In Grimes, supra, the Ohio Supreme Court examined the manner in which trial courts must inform criminal defendant‘s concerning postrelease control. Ultimately, the court held that to validly impose postrelease control, a trial court must include the following information in its sentencing entry:
(1) whether postrelease control is discretionary or mandatory, (2) the duration of the postrelease-control period, and (3) a statement to the effect that the Adult Parole Authority (“APA“) will administer the postrelease control pursuant to
R.C. 2967.28 and that any violation by the offender of the conditions of postrelease control will subject the offender to the consequences set forth in that statute. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19, 2017-Ohio-2927, 85 N.E.3d 700, at ¶ 1.
{13} Here, the trial court‘s sentencing entry in case No. CR0200601180 did not include the foregoing information. Thus, appellant contends that his postrelease control sanction should be vacated. In response, the state advances several arguments as to why
If a court imposes a sentence including a prison term of a type described in division (B)(2)(c) of this section on or after July 11, 2006, the failure of a court to notify the offender pursuant to division (B)(2)(c) of this section that the offender will be supervised under section 2967.28 of the Revised Code after the offender leaves prison or to include in the judgment of conviction entered on the journal a statement to that effect does not negate, limit, or otherwise affect the mandatory period of supervision that is required for the offender under division (B) of section 2967.28 of the Revised Code.
{14} Here, the trial court‘s verbal notification, paired with its reference to the relevant sentencing statutes in its sentencing entry, complied with the postrelease control requirements in effect at the time of sentencing. Appellant does not dispute this fact. The state insists that Grimes should not be applied retroactively to appellant‘s postrelease control sentence, which was imposed long before Grimes was released. We agree.
{16} In the present case, appellant had exhausted all of his appellate remedies several years prior to the Ohio Supreme Court‘s decision in Grimes. Consequently, his conviction had already become final, and therefore not subject to the application of Grimes. State v. Schroeder, 151 Ohio St.3d 345, 2017-Ohio-7858, 88 N.E.3d 957, does not command a different result. According to the trial court, the Ohio Supreme Court retroactively applied Grimes when it issued its decision in Schroeder. However, Schroeder was pending before the Ohio Supreme Court when Grimes was released. Thus, Grimes was prospectively applied in Schroeder. Such is not the case here given the fact that apellant‘s motion to vacate had not yet been filed on the date Grimes was announced and was therefore not pending on the announcement date.
{17} Because appellant‘s sentencing entry complied with the preexisting body of case law concerning the imposition of postrelease control, we find that the trial court properly denied appellant‘s motion to vacate his postrelease control sanction. Accordingly, appellant‘s assignment of error is not well-taken.
{18} In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Arlene Singer, J.
JUDGE
James D. Jensen, J.
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, 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.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.