State v. Brown

[Cite as State v. Brown, 

.]


                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                    RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


STATE OF OHIO,                              :       JUDGES:
                                            :       Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
        Plaintiff - Appellee                :       Hon. W. Scott Gwing, J.
                                            :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-                                        :
                                            :
STANLEY BROWN,                              :       Case No. 2023 CA 0041
                                            :
        Defendant - Appellant               :       OPINION



CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                            Appeal from the Richland County
                                                    Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
                                                    2015-CR-0698



JUDGMENT:                                           Vacated




DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                   July 31, 2024



APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                              For Defendant-Appellant

JODIE M. SCHUMACHER                                 BRYON D. CORLEY
Prosecuting Attorney                                3 North Main Street, Suite 602
38 S. Park Street                                   Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0041                                               2


Baldwin, J.

       {¶1}   The appellant appeals the trial court’s decision denying his motion to vacate

post release control sanctions and re-imposing five years of post release control at a

hearing conducted after his release from prison. Appellee is the State of Ohio.

                    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

       {¶2}   On June 7, 2016, a jury found the appellant guilty of Aiding or Abetting Rape

in violation of R.C. § 2907.02(A)(1)(c), a first-degree felony. On June 13, 2016, the trial

court conducted a sentencing hearing at which the appellant was sentenced to a

mandatory seven-year prison term and, pursuant to R.C. 2950.01, classified as a Tier III

sex offender. In addition to his prison sentence and sex offender classification, the trial

court imposed post release control sanctions upon the appellant, stating "You have five

years mandatory Post Release Control." The trial court did not inform the appellant of the

requirements of post release control, nor of the possible ramifications for violations

thereof.

       {¶3}   The appellant thereafter appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court

improperly excluded probative evidence pursuant to Ohio’s rape shield statute, and that

the jury’s finding that he was guilty of aiding and abetting rape was not supported by

sufficient evidence. The appellee did not file an appeal or cross-appeal. This Court

affirmed the appellant’s conviction in State v. Brown, 

 (5th Dist.).

       {¶4}   The appellant completed his mandatory seven year term, and was released

from prison on April 30, 2023. On May 16, 2023, he filed a motion with the trial court

seeking to terminate or vacate the five year post release control sanction, arguing that
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0041                                              3


the trial court did not properly advise him regarding post release control during the June

13, 2016 sentencing hearing.

       {¶5}   On June 9, 2023, the trial court conducted a hearing on the appellant’s

motion and the issue of post release control. The trial court denied the appellant’s motion,

and “re-sentenced” the appellant in order to fully apprise him of the conditions of post

release control and potential sanctions for violations. The appellant moved for

reconsideration of his May 16, 2023 motion, which the trial court overruled.

       {¶6}   The appellant filed a timely appeal, setting forth the following sole

assignment of error:

       {¶7}   “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING BROWN’S MOTION OF

MAY 16, 2023.”

                                        ANALYSIS

       {¶8}   The issue of re-sentencing an offender in order to properly impose post

release control was recently addressed by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Bates,

. In Bates, the defendant was sentenced to a nine-year prison term for

kidnapping, rape, and robbery, including a term of post release control (PCR.) During the

original sentencing hearing the trial court did not advise the defendant of the requirements

of PCR, nor of the potential ramifications of violating the terms of PCR. Ten years after

he was sentenced, following a classification hearing on the defendant’s sexual-predator

status at which the prosecutor raised an issue regarding the imposition of PCR, the trial

court issued an entry regarding sentencing that included notice of the consequences of

violating PCR.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0041                                                   4


       {¶9}   The Supreme Court held that when a trial court does not properly advise a

defendant regarding the requirements of PCR and the possible consequences for

violating said requirements, it is the State that is aggrieved since it invalidates that portion

of the sentence. The State did not appeal of that issue and, as a result, the PCR sanction

was voidable. When the defendant sought to set aside the PCR sanction, the failure to

appeal the trial court’s omission regarding the requirements of PCR was subject to res

judicata. Accordingly, the PCR sanction could not be corrected via a “re-sentencing”

hearing.

       {¶10} In the case sub judice, the trial court failed to provide notice to the appellant

during the June 13, 2016 sentencing hearing of the requirements of PCR and the

consequences of its violations. Based upon the reasoning set forth in Bates, it was the

appellee's burden to raise this error on direct appeal in order to ensure that the PCR

sanction was properly imposed. Because the appellee failed to do so, res judicata bars

collateral attack on the original sentence and precludes a new sentencing entry, entered

after the appellant has completed his prison term, providing notice of his PCR obligations

and potential consequences for violations of said terms.

       {¶11} We are bound by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bates, to which the facts

and issues in this case are very similar. The trial court did not provide the appellant with

notice regarding his PCR obligations during the original sentencing hearing, and

attempted to correct this with a resentencing hearing conducted after the appellant’s

release from prison. The trial court’s lack of notice to the appellant at the time of his initial

sentencing hearing regarding the requirements of PCR and potential penalties for

violations thereof rendered that portion of the appellant’s sentence voidable. Further, res
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0041                                              5


judicata prevents the trial court from correcting this omission with a resentencing hearing,

as it was the duty of the appellee to raise the issue of the inadequate notice on direct

appeal if it desired that portion of the original sentence to be imposed. The appellee did

not raise this issue on direct appeal, and therefore waived the right to raise it in a

subsequent appeal. Based upon the Bates reasoning, the trial court had neither the

authority nor the jurisdiction to re-impose post release control sanctions once the

appellant sought to void the voidable PCR portion of his sentence after his release from

prison. The appellant’s assignment of error is therefore sustained.

                                      CONCLUSION

       {¶12} Based upon the foregoing, the sanction of five years post release control

imposed upon the appellant by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is hereby

vacated.

By: Baldwin, J.

Delaney, P.J. and

Gwin, J. concur.