State v. Snelling

2013 Ohio 2633

Ohio Ct. App.

2013

Check Treatment

STATE OF OHIO v. REGINALD SNELLING

Case No. 12CA79

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

June 21, 2013

2013-Ohio-2633

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.; Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.; Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 10-CR-43 D; JUDGMENT: Affirmed

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee

JAMES J. MAYER, JR. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO

BY: JILL M. COCHRAN Assistant Richland County Prosecutor 38 South Park Street Mansfield, Ohio 44902

For Defendant-Appellant

JAMES L. BLUNT, II 445 West Longview Avenue Mansfield, Ohio 44903

OPINION

Hoffman, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Reginald Snelling appeals his sentence entered by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE¹

{¶2} On June 8, 2010, Appellant was found guilty by a jury of abduction, failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer and assault on a police officer. Via Sentencing Entry of June 15, 2010, Appellant was sentenced to seven years in prison and a mandatory three year term of post-release control.

{¶3} On June 14, 2010, Appellant filed a direct appeal from his conviction with this Court in

State v. Snelling, Fifth Dist. Case No. 10-CA-94. This Court affirmed Appellant‘s conviction via Judgment Entry of June 22, 2011. See, .

{¶4} On October 11, 2011, Appellant filed a pro se motion to vacate his sentence and for appointment of counsel. Via Judgment Entry of December 8, 2011, the trial court overruled Appellant‘s motion.

{¶5} On April 9, 2012, Appellant filed a pro se motion for sentencing. His motion was denied via Judgment Entry filed August 9, 2012.

{¶6} It is from that entry, Appellant prosecutes this appeal, assigning as error:

{¶7} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO ORALLY PRONOUNCE NOTIFICATION OF THE IMPOSITION OF POST RELEASE CONTROL AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF A VIOLATION OF POST RELEASE CONTROL; THEREBY RENDERING THE SENTENCING VOID.”

{¶8} In the sole assigned error, Appellant maintains the trial court erred during his sentencing in failing to orally pronounce the time period of post-release control and the consequences of violation as statutorily mandated by R.C. 2943.032. Appellant maintains his sentence is therefore void.

{¶9} R.C. 2943.032 reads,

{¶10} “Prior to accepting a guilty plea or a plea of no contest to an indictment, information, or complaint that charges a felony, the court shall inform the defendant personally that, if the defendant pleads guilty or no contest to the felony so charged or any other felony, if the court imposes a prison term upon the defendant for the felony, and if the offender violates the conditions of a post-release control sanction imposed by the parole board upon the completion of the stated prison term, the parole board may impose upon the offender a residential sanction that includes a new prison term of up to nine months.”

{¶11} The statute pertains to the trial court‘s acceptance of a guilty plea or of a plea of no contest. As set forth in the Statement of the Case, supra, Appellant was convicted of the charges following a jury trial. Therefore, Appellant‘s reliance on R.C. 2943.032 is misplaced. For the same result see,

State v. Reid, 2nd Dist. No. 24841, 2012-Ohio-2666 and .

{¶12} The sole assignment of error is overruled.

{¶13} Appellant‘s sentence in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P.J. Delaney, J. and Baldwin, J. concur

s/ William B. Hoffman

HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN

s/ Patricia A. Delaney

HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY

s/ Craig R. Baldwin

HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN

STATE OF OHIO v. REGINALD SNELLING

Case No. 12CA79

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reason stated in our accompanying Opinion, Appellant‘s sentence in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Appellant.