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 v. Snelling

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District

June 21, 2013

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
REGINALD SNELLING, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 10-CR-43 D.

For Plaintiff-Appellee JAMES J. MAYER, JR. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO BY: JILL M. COCHRAN Assistant Richland County Prosecutor.

For Defendant-Appellant JAMES L. BLUNT, II.

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

OPINION

Hoffman, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Reginald Snelling appeals his sentence entered by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE[1]

{¶2} On June 8, 2010, Appellant was found guilty by a jury of abduction, failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer and assault on a police officer. Via Sentencing Entry of June 15, 2010, Appellant was sentenced to seven years in prison and a mandatory three year term of post-release control.

{¶3} On June 14, 2010, Appellant filed a direct appeal from his conviction with this Court in State v. Snelling, Fifth Dist. Case No. 10-CA-94. This Court affirmed Appellant's conviction via Judgment Entry of June 22, 2011. See, State v. Snelling, 5th Dist. No. 10-CA-94, 2011-Ohio-3222.

{¶4} On October 11, 2011, Appellant filed a pro se motion to vacate his sentence and for appointment of counsel. Via Judgment Entry of December 8, 2011, the trial court overruled Appellant's motion.

{¶5} On April 9, 2012, Appellant filed a pro se motion for sentencing. His motion was denied via Judgment Entry filed August 9, 2012.

{¶6} It is from that entry, Appellant prosecutes this appeal, assigning as error:

{¶7} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO ORALLY PRONOUNCE NOTIFICATION OF THE IMPOSITION OF POST RELEASE CONTROL AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF A VIOLATION OF POST RELEASE CONTROL; THEREBY RENDERING THE SENTENCING VOID."

{¶8} In the sole assigned error, Appellant maintains the trial court erred during his sentencing in failing to orally pronounce the time period of post-release control and the consequences of violation as statutorily mandated by R.C. ...


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.