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. Freeman

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District

July 11, 2013

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
MAURICE FREEMAN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-410924

FOR APPELLANT Maurice Freeman, Pro se.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor T. Allan Regas Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center

BEFORE: Jones, P.J., S. Gallagher, J., and McCosrmack, J.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

LARRY A. JONES, SR, PRESIDING JUDGE.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Maurice Freeman, appeals his sentence. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand the case for a hearing limited to the imposition of postrelease control.

I. Procedural History

{¶2} In 2001, a jury convicted Freeman of aggravated murder with one- and three-year gun specifications. The trial court convicted Freeman of a single bifurcated count of having weapons while under disability. The trial court sentenced Freeman to 3 years on the gun specifications to run consecutive to 20 years to life on the aggravated murder conviction. The court also sentenced him to one year on the having weapons while under disability conviction to run concurrent to the aggravated murder sentence. This court affirmed his conviction in State v. Freeman, 8th Dist. No. 80720, 2002-Ohio-4572, and denied a subsequent application for reopening of his appeal in State v. Freeman, 8th Dist. No. 80720, 2009-Ohio-3065.

{¶3} In April 2012, the trial court filed a nunc pro tunc journal entry imposing postrelease control as part of Freeman's original sentence. Freeman filed a motion to vacate his void judgment, which the state opposed and the trial court denied. Freeman filed a timely appeal and raises three assignments of error for our review, which will be combined for our review:

[I]. Whether [the] trial court abused [its] discretion, and implicated due process when it denied "without hearing" defendant's properly pled and substantively supported motion for "vacation of void judgment" and "sentencing, " where the record on [its] face presented a prima facie case for the suggested relief. [Citations omitted.]
[II]. Whether [the] trial court abused [its] discretion, and offended due process when it denied, without hearing, and failed to vacate a void judgment, when the record presents a prima facie case for relief as the trial court has failed to return a plea, verdict and findings, and sentence for all charges prosecuted against the defendant, rendering judgment deficient, interlocutory, [and] incomplete. [Citations omitted.]
[III.] The trial court abused [its] discretion and violate[d] due process when it failed to enter judgment entry of conviction in compliance with Crim.R. 32(C). [Citations omitted.]

II. Law and Analysis

{ΒΆ 4} Within his assignments of error, Freeman argues that his convictions should be vacated because postrelease control was never properly imposed at the sentencing hearing or in the journal entry, the trial court filed ...


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.