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. Joseph Pelfrey

January 29, 2013

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOSEPH PELFREY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.



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

Cite as State v. Pelfrey,

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶1} Joseph Pelfrey (hereinafter "Pelfrey") appeals the judgment of the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his motion for a de novo sentencing hearing. On appeal, Pelfrey contends that he is entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing because his judgment of conviction does not properly impose postrelease control. We disagree. Because Pelfrey was properly notified of postrelease control at his joint-change-of-plea-and-sentencing hearing, the trial court may correct Pelfrey's judgment of conviction in a nunc pro tunc entry. Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court for that limited purpose.

I.

{¶2} A Scioto County Grand Jury returned a multiple-count indictment against Pelfrey. Initially, he pled not guilty to the charges. But following plea negotiations, Pelfrey agreed to plead guilty to (1) aggravated robbery, (2) having weapons while under disability, and (3) a firearm specification.

{¶3} During Pelfrey's joint-change-of-plea-and-sentencing hearing, the trial court provided the following notification about postrelease control: Post release control is mandatory in this case and the period of time will be five years, but you will enter into an agreement with the parole authority on how you are to conduct your life and if you violate that agreement certain things could happen. You could spend time in the County Jail, the agreement could be modified and become more restrictive upon your life style, the period of time you're on it could be increased to a maximum of five years or ultimately for a violation the parole authority could send you back to prison but for no more than half of your original sentence.

In addition the law also provides if a person is on post release control and they commit a new felony the sentencing court, in addition to any time imposed for the new felony, can also revoke post release control and can sentence a person back to prison for the greater of one year or the remaining time a person has under post release control. Transcript at 4-5.

{¶4} Pelfrey's judgment of conviction, however, contains only the following postrelease-control language:

Post Release Control is: [X] MANDATORY [ ] OPTIONAL

For a term of 5 years, as well as the consequences for violating conditions of post release control imposed by the Parole Board under Revised Code Section 2967.28. The defendant is ordered to serve as part of this sentence any term of post release control imposed by the Parole Board, and any prison term for violation of that post release control.

Thus, unlike the notification at the joint-change-of-plea-and-sentencing hearing,

Pelfrey's judgment of conviction does not contain specific details of what may happen if he violates the conditions of postrelease control.

{¶5} On September 10, 2010, Pelfrey filed a pro se motion for "de novo sentencing." Pelfrey argued that his judgment of conviction does not properly impose postrelease control and, as a result, that his sentence is void. The trial court, however, denied Pelfrey's motion for de novo sentencing.

{ΒΆ6} Pelfrey appeals and asserts the following assignment of error: "The Trial Court Erred When It Denied Defendant A De Novo ...


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.