STATE OF OHIO v. TERRENCE RATLIFF
No. 109473
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
April 8, 2021
2021-Ohio-1187
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-95-331000-B
JUDGMENT: VACATED AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 8, 2021
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brandon A. Piteo, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Jerome Emoff, for appellant.
MARY J. BOYLE, A.J.:
{1} Defendant-appellant, Terrence Ratliff, appeals the trial court‘s judgment resentencing him due to an error in his 1996 sentence. He raises one assignment of error for our review:
Appellant‘s “re-sentencing” is invalid due to unnecessary delay.
I. Procedural History and Factual Background
{3} In 1996, a jury convicted Ratliff of aggravated murder in violation of
{4} On November 8, 2019, Ratliff filed a “motion to vacate void sentence.” He argued that his sentence was void because it failed to include parole eligibility after 20 years. On December 2, 2019, without explicitly ruling on Ratliff‘s motiоn, the trial court scheduled a resentencing hearing, which took place on January 9, 2020.
{5} At the resentencing hearing, defense counsel stated that Ratliff believed the trial court had lost jurisdiction to resentence him, and he should therefore be released from prison, bеcause his sentence of “life imprisonment” is void. However, Ratliff confirmed that he had three parole hearings even though his sentence omitted the language of parole eligibility after 20 years. The trial court
{6} It is from this judgment that Ratliff timely appeals. As this appeal was pending, the Ohio Supreme Court released Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, and Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285, 2020-Ohio-4784, 162 N.E.3d 776. This court sua sponte ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding these cases, which they did.
II. Law and Analysis
{7} In his sole assignment of error, Ratliff argues that we should vacate his sentence and release him from prison because his sentenсe imposed in 1996 was unlawful, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resentence him in 2020. He contends that the sentence imposed in 1996 in effect did not occur, and on January 9, 2020, the trial court sentenced him “for the first time” nearly 25 years after his conviction.
{8} Ratliff‘s argument that his 1996 sentenсe was void and “never occurred” lacks merit. Ratliff argues his sentence was void on the authority of State v. Houston, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107538, 2019-Ohio-355, in which this court held that a sentencing еrror rendered the defendant‘s sentence void and remanded for resentencing. But after Houston was decided and the trial court resentenсed Ratliff, the Ohio Supreme Court “realigned” its “void-sentence jurisprudence” in Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, and Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285, 2020-Ohio-4784. Under Harper and Henderson, “sentences based on
{9} Here, the sentencing court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Ratliff‘s case and personal jurisdiction over him when it sentenced him in 1996.
{10} Appellant argues that a “strict reading” of Harper and Henderson requires this court to put a “stamp of approval” on Ratliff‘s illegal 1996 sentence, which is unjust. He points to Chiеf Justice O‘Connor‘s concurring in judgment only opinion in Henderson, in which Chief Justice O‘Connor expressed concern that the
{11} We echo the Chief Justice‘s questions and concerns in her concurring in judgment only opinion. But we are constrained to fоllow the holdings of the majority opinions in Harper and Henderson that if the sentencing court has jurisdiction over the case and the defendant, a sentencing error renders the court‘s judgment voidable, not void, and neither the state nor the defendant can challenge the judgment through a postconviсtion motion. Harper at ¶ 4; Henderson at ¶ 1.
{12} Furthermore, even though Ratliff‘s 1996 sentence incorrectly omitted the parole eligibility language, Ratliff has nonetheless beеn participating in parole hearings. We agree with the state that even before the trial court corrected Ratliff‘s sentenсe, the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction had complied with
{13} Accordingly, although we overrule Ratliff‘s аssignment of error, we must nonetheless vacate the trial court‘s resentencing judgment for lack of jurisdiction.
{14} Judgment vacated and remandеd to the trial court to reimpose Ratliff‘s 1996 sentence.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant the сosts 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.
MARY J. BOYLE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR