State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan A. Watkins, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15AP-694
(C.P.C. No. 00CR09-5294)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Rendered on March 1, 2016
[Cite as State v. Watkins, 2016-Ohio-780.]
KLATT, J.
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
On brief: Ryan A. Watkins, pro se.
APPEAL from Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
D E C I S I O N
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Ryan A. Watkins, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for resentencing. For the following reasons, we reverse that judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for a limited resentencing to properly impose post-release control.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} In 2000, appellant was indicted for counts of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and having a weapon while under disability. A jury found appellant not guilty of aggravated murder, but guilty of the lesser included offense of murder. The jury also found appellant guilty of aggravated robbery and felonious assault and the trial court found appellant guilty of the having a weapon while under disability count. As a result, the trial court sentenced appellant to a prison term of fifteen years to life for the murder conviction as well as consecutive prison terms of eight and
{¶ 3} In 2015, appellant filed a motion for resentencing in which he claimed that the trial court failed to properly notify him of post-release control at his sentencing hearing. The trial court denied his motion, concluding that there was no need to notify appellant of post-release control because he had been convicted of murder, an unclassified felony, for which post-release control does not apply.
II. Appellant‘s Appeal
{¶ 4} Appellant appeals and assigns the following error:
The trial court erred when it denied appellant‘s motion for sentencing, where it showed that a mandatory term of post release control had not been imposed.
{¶ 5} The trial court correctly noted that appellant was convicted of murder, an unclassified felony for which post-release control does not apply. State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, ¶ 36 (parole, not post-release control, applicable to unclassified felonies). Appellant was also convicted of first and second degree felonies, however, for which mandatory post-release control does apply.
{¶ 6} In State v. Cockroft, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-532, 2014-Ohio-1644, this court dealt with the same issue. Cockroft had been convicted of both unclassified and classified felonies and was not notified of the post-release control periods applicable to his classified felony convictions. He argued for a new sentencing hearing to receive proper notification of post-release control for his classified felony convictions. We agreed, concluding that ” ‘[w]hen a defendant has been convicted of both an offense that carries mandatory post-
{¶ 7} In light of our decision in Cockroft, we sustain appellant‘s assignment of error, and reverse the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for a limited resentencing to properly impose post-release control.
Judgment reversed; cause remanded with instructions.
BRUNNER and HORTON, JJ., concur.