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. Montgomery

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Stark

June 19, 2017

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
THEODIS MONTGOMERY, JR. Defendant-Appellant

         CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2010CR0295

          For Plaintiff-Appellee JOHN D. FERRERO Prosecuting Attorney, KRISTINE BEARD Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

          For Defendant-Appellant THEODIS MONTGOMERY, JR., Pro Se.

          Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

          OPINION

          Wise, Earle, J.

         {¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Theodis Montgomery, Jr., appeals the January 25, 2017 judgment entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, denying his motion to vacate post-release control. Defendant-Appellee is the state of Ohio.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶ 2} On July 28, 2010, appellant pled guilty to one count of kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01, one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25, and one count of violating a protection order in violation of R.C. 2919.27. By judgment entry filed August 3, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of four years in prison and imposed post-release control.

         {¶ 3} On December 29, 2016, appellant filed a motion to vacate post-release control. By judgment entry filed January 25, 2017, the trial court denied the motion.

         {¶ 4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:

         I

         {¶ 5} "APPELLANT CONTENDS THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR BY IMPROPERLY NOTIFYING HIM OF SAID PRC SANCTIONS, SPECIFICALLY 'FAILING TO NOTIFY A DEFENDANT OF THE CONSECUTIVE PRISON TERM HE COULD FACE IF HE WOULD COMMIT ANOTHER FELONY WHILE BEING ON PRC.' THUS RENDERING HIS PRC SANCTION VOID FOR FAILURE TO FULLY NOTIFY HIM OF THE CONSEQUENCES SET FORTH IN R.C. 2929.141."

         {¶ 6} Preliminarily, we note this case is before this court on the accelerated calendar which is governed by App.R. 11.1. Subsection (E), determination and judgment on appeal, provides in pertinent part: "The appeal will be determined as provided by App.R. 11.1. It shall be sufficient compliance with App.R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason for the court's decision as to each error to be in brief and conclusionary form."

         {¶ 7} One of the important purposes of the accelerated calendar is to enable an appellate court to render a brief and conclusory decision more quickly than in a case on the regular calendar where the briefs, facts, and legal issues are more complicated. Crawford v. ...


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.