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. Steven R. Triplett

October 14, 2011

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
STEVEN R. TRIPLETT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harsha, P.J.

Cite as

State v. Triplett,

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶1} Steven Triplett appeals from the resentencing entry issued by the Lawrence County Common Pleas Court. Triplett argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resentence him because the appeal of his sentence was pending in this Court. We agree. The resentencing hearing was a nullity and the resentencing entry is a void judgment because the trial court lacked jurisdiction over matters inconsistent with our appellate jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the sentence Triplett appealed. Accordingly, we reverse.

I. Summary of the Case

{¶2} In December 2009, a Lawrence County grand jury indicted Triplett on one count of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated burglary. In February 2010, after plea negotiations, Triplett pleaded guilty to both counts. In August 2010, Triplett filed a motion to seek a delayed appeal, which we granted.

{¶3} In that appeal, Triplett argued that the court failed to inform him of mandatory post-release control at his sentencing hearing. We agreed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. See State v. Triplett, Lawrence App. No. 10CA35, 2011- Ohio-4628. While that appeal was pending, the court resentenced Triplett, properly notified him of post-release control, and issued a new judgment entry of conviction. Thereafter, Triplett filed a timely appeal of the resentencing entry. II. Assignments of Error

{¶4} Triplett assigns two errors in this appeal:

I. THE TRIAL COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO RESENTENCE DEFENDANT WHILE A PRIOR APPEAL WAS STILL PENDING. II. IF THE TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION, IT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT IN REFUSING TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA.

III. Resentencing after Notice of Appeal

{¶5} In his first assignment of error, Triplett argues that the court lacked jurisdiction to resentence him while the appeal of his sentence was pending in this Court. The state argues that, despite the filing of an appeal, the trial court retains jurisdiction to "take action in aid of the appeal" and that it may therefore "rectify the issue on appeal" by resentencing the defendant.

{¶6} An appellant perfects his appeal by filing the notice of appeal. R.C. 2505.04. Once this occurs, the trial court lacks jurisdiction over matters inconsistent with our appellate jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment. State ex rel. Rock v. School Emp. Retirement Bd., 96 Ohio St.3d 206, 2002-Ohio-3957, 772 N.E.2d 1197, at ¶8 (per curiam). Triplett perfected an appeal of his sentence and the trial court's attempt to modify the sentence on appeal by resentencing him was clearly inconsistent with our appellate jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the sentence.

{¶7} Contrary to the state's argument, to "take action in aid of the appeal" does not mean that the trial court may "rectify" the very issue on appeal when it realizes that the appellant's argument is correct. "[T]he determination as to the appropriateness of an appeal lies solely with the appellate court." In re S.J., 106 Ohio St.3d 11, 2005-Ohio- 3215, 829 N.E.2d 1207, at ΒΆ10. A trial court has no authority to determine the validity or merit of an appeal. Id. ...


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.