FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE NO. CR 07-05-1385
LAWRENCE W. REED, PRO SE, APPELLANT.
BEVAN WALSH, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, AND JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN,
ASSISTANT PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, FOR APPELLEE.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
JENNIFER HENSAL JUDGE.
Lawrence Reed appeals a judgment of the Summit County Court
of Common Pleas that denied his motion to vacate and release
from post-release control supervision. For the following
reasons, this Court reverses.
In 2007, Mr. Reed pleaded guilty to and was convicted of
multiple offenses. The trial court sentenced him to four
years imprisonment. Although he completed his sentence in
this case in 2011, he remained imprisoned for other offenses
until March 2019.
In November 2018, Mr. Reed filed a motion to vacate and
release from postrelease control supervision, arguing that,
although the trial court had informed him that he would be
subject to a period of post-release control following his
release, it failed to notify him about the consequences he
could face for violating post-release control. He, therefore
argued that the court's imposition of post-release
control was void. He also argued that, because he had already
completed his four-year sentence, the court could not correct
The trial court denied Mr. Reed's motion, finding that it
had, in fact, informed Mr. Reed of his post-release control
conditions. Mr. Reed has appealed, assigning as error that
the trial court incorrectly denied his motion to vacate.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION
TO VACATE AND RELEASE FROM POST-RELEASE CONTROL SUPERVISION.
THE SENTENCING JOURNAL DID NOT INCLUDE OR PROVIDE APPELLANT
WITH STATUTORILY COMPLIANT NOTIFICATION OF POST RELEASE
CONTROL SUPERVISION CONSEQUENCES, NOR DID THE TRIAL COURT
ALLOCATE AUTHORITY/JURISDICTION TO THE OHIO ADULT PAROLE
AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE POST-RELEASE CONTROL SANCTIONS, THUS
FAILING TO COMPLY WITH SEPARATION-OF-POWERS, AND FULFILL ALL
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF POST-RELEASE CONTROL TO BE INCLUDED
IN APPELLANT'S SENTENCING JOURNAL ENTRY.
Mr. Reed argues that the trial court failed to give him the
proper post-release control notifications or incorporate them
into its sentencing entry. He also argues that, since he has
completed his sentence for the offenses in this case, the
trial court does not have jurisdiction to resentence
"[I]n order to comply with separation-of-powers concerns
and to fulfill the requirements of the
postrelease-control-sentencing statutes, * * * a trial court
must provide statutorily compliant notification to a
defendant regarding postrelease control at the time of
sentencing." State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d
499, 2012-Ohio-1111, ¶ 18, citing R.C. 2929.19(B) and
2967.28. This includes "notifying the defendant of the
details of the postrelease control and the consequences of
violating postrelease control." Id. The trial
court must also "incorporate into the sentencing entry
the postrelease-control notice to reflect the notification
that was given at the sentencing hearing[, ]" which
includes incorporating the consequences of violating
postrelease control. Id. at ¶ 19; State v.
Singleton,124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, ¶ 11
("[T]he imposed post-release control sanctions are to be
included in the judgment entry journalized by the
court."); State v. Grimes,151 Ohio St.3d 19,
2017-Ohio-2927, ¶ 1. "A sentence that does not
include the statutorily mandated term of postrelease ...