State of Ohio v. Dante A. Myers
Court of Appeals Nos. L-18-1033 L-18-1118
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
May 24, 2019
2019-Ohio-2048
Trial Court Nos. CR0200601604 CR0200603024
Juliа R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alyssa Breyman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Allen Vender, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant.
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} In this consоlidated appeal, appellant, Dante Myers, appeals from the January 25, 2018 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas denying appellant’s motion to vacate the mandatory postrelease control imposed as part of his
{¶ 2} Appellant was released from prison after serving his terms of imprisonment imposed in two 2007 Lucas County Court of Common Pleas case Nos. CR0200601604 (involving a second-degree and fourth-degreе felony) and CR0200603024 (involving a first-degree and a second-degree felony). He is currently being supervised basеd on the postrelease control sanction imposed in the latter case.
{¶ 3} In 2017, appеllant moved to vacate his postrelease control sanction. Appellant conсeded in his motion that he was properly informed of the postrelease control sanctiоn at the sentencing hearing. However, he asserts both sentencing judgment entries were void as to the imposition of postrelease control because they failed to properly notify him that the postrelease control was mandatory, the length of the postrelease control period, and that the Adult Parole Authority would administer the postrelease control and could impose a sanction for violations of the conditions of postrelease control subject to
{¶ 4} The trial court аgreed the sentencing entry lacked the information required by Grimes, supra. However, the trial court applied our holding in State v. Murray, 2012-Ohio-4996, 979 N.E.2d 831, ¶ 23 (6th Dist.), and held that the sentencing entry could be corrected by a
The trial court committed reversible error when it denied Dante Myers’s Motion to Vacate Post-Release Control because Myers was not properly notified of his term a post-release control and it could not issue a nunc pro tunc after he comрleted his prison term. State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19, 2017-Ohio-2927, 85 N.E.3d 700, State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 2012-Ohio-1111, 967 N.E.2d 718.
{¶ 5} In 2007, when appellant was sentenced in this case, Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425, 2006-Ohio-5082, 857 N.E.2d 78, ¶ 42, provided that the postrelease control notification in a sentencing entry must be viewed under a substantial-compliance analysis. See State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509, 881 N.E.2d 1224, ¶ 23. For that reason, we consistеntly held that a simple reference to the postrelease control statutes was sufficient to notify the offender the trial court authorized a postrelease-control sanction. Murray at ¶ 24.
{¶ 6} However, in 2017, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified in State v. Grimes, supra, that thе following information must be included in the sentencing entry to impose
{¶ 7} After Grimes, we have consistently held that the Grimes holding is a new judicial ruling, which cannot be applied retroactively to cases not рending at the time Grimes was pronounced. State v. Bigelow, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-17-1306, 2018-Ohio-3508, ¶ 14, State v. Faulkner, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-17-048, 2018-Ohio-3824, ¶ 8; State v. Madrid, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-17-1299, 2018-Ohio-1873, ¶ 14. Compare State v. West, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-519, 2019-Ohio-950, ¶ 9; State v. Harper, 2018-Ohio-2529, 115 N.E.3d 840, ¶ 15 (10th Dist.) (both cases apply Grimes under the reasoning that the sentencing entry is void and the doctrines of finality or res judicаta do not apply); State v. Lonero, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-14-1229, 2016-Ohio-1113, reversed and remanded by State v. Lonero, 151 Ohio St.3d 277, 2017-Ohio-7859, 87 N.E.3d 1261, ¶ 1 (applying the Grimes rule because the Lonero case was before the Ohio Supreme Court on direct appeаl after Grimes was announced).
{¶ 8} Applying our precedent, we find appellant’s sole assignment of error not well-taken.
{¶ 9} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudicial to appellant and that substantial justice has been done, the judgment of the Lucas County
Certification of Conflict
{¶ 10} Pursuant to
{¶ 11} The parties are directed to S.Ct.Prac.R. 5.03 and 8.01 for guidance on how to proceed.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified coрy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
Arlene Singer, J.
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
CONCUR.
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/.