Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio v. Michael L. Evans

September 30, 2011

STATE OF OHIO APPELLEE
v.
MICHAEL L. EVANS APPELLANT



APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE No. 06-CR-0341

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Moore, Judge.

Cite as State v. Evans,

ss:

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

{¶1} Appellant, Michael L. Evans, appeals from his conviction in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms in part and vacates in part.

I.

{¶2} In 2007, Evans was convicted on multiple felony offenses. He directly appealed his convictions to this Court. After the record was supplemented with a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry, this Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. See State v. Evans, 9th Dist. No. 07CA0057-M, 2008-Ohio-4772 at ¶30.

{¶3} In 2009, Evans filed a petition to vacate his sentence, arguing that he was entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing and that his sentence was void due to the failure of the trial court to correctly impose postrelease control. The trial court denied Evans' petition, and he appealed. See State v. Evans, 9th Dist. No. 09CA0102-M, 2010-Ohio-2514. This Court overruled Evans' assignment of error, yet noted that postrelease control was not correctly imposed. Id. at ¶7-8.

This Court identified R.C. 2929.191 as presenting the method through which to remedy the incorrect imposition of postrelease control. Id. at ¶7.

{¶4} Thereafter, the trial court held a resentencing hearing to correct the imposition of postrelease control. The trial court's November 3, 2010 "Correction of Judgment of Conviction Entry" re-imposed the original sentence and correctly imposed mandatory postrelease control.

{¶5} Evans timely filed a notice of appeal from the November 3, 2010 entry. He raises three assignments of error for our review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY APPLYING R.C. 2929.191 PROSPECTIVELY TO SIMPLY CORRECT THE ERROR IN [EVANS'] PREVIOUSLY-IMPOSED SENTENCE, BY PROPERLY IMPOSING THE MANDATORY PERIODS OF POST-RELEASE CONTROL, INSTEAD OF CONDUCTING A DE NOVO SENTENCING HEARING, AS ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.