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. Richardson

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

August 29, 2019

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Rhashann L. Richardson, Defendant-Appellant.

          APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas No. 03CR-1670

          On brief: Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for appellee.

          On brief: James Watson, for appellant.

          DECISION

          BEATTY BLUNT, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Rhashann L. Richardson, appeals a February 21, 2018 decision from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his July 11, 2017 motion for resentencing[1] and his August 25, 2017 "motion for: 'vacation' of judgment of conviction and sentence." Because Richardson's conviction for murder does not mandate imposition of post-release control, the trial court did not err in issuing a nunc pro tunc entry to remove a reference to post-release control in the original sentencing entry. Furthermore, because Richardson was not prejudiced by the clerical error mentioning post-release control, he cannot show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court's decision denying both motions and entering a nunc pro tunc entry to correct the clerical error.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶ 2} Richardson was indicted on one count of aggravated murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.01, on March 12, 2003. The charge included a three-year firearm specification.

         {¶ 3} The parties entered into a plea agreement whereby Richardson agreed to plead guilty to the lesser-included offense of murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.02, and a 1-year firearm specification. Pursuant to that plea agreement, the parties recommended that Richardson receive an indefinite sentence of 15 years to life for the murder charge and 1 year on the firearm specification. The two sentences were to run consecutively. The guilty plea did not include any provision implementing post-release control.

         {¶ 4} The trial court approved the entry of guilty plea and held a plea and sentencing hearing on June 1, 2004. The trial court reviewed the entry of guilty plea with Richardson on the record and confirmed that Richardson understood the plea and was making the plea voluntarily. The trial court then discussed the joint recommendation and the maximum sentence Richardson could receive. Richardson indicated that he understood the maximum sentence he could receive. The trial court ultimately accepted Richardson's plea and imposed the jointly recommended sentence. The trial court did not discuss post-release control with Richardson during the plea and sentencing hearing.

         {¶ 5} The court filed its judgment entry on June 10, 2004. In that judgment entry, the trial court included the offense to which Richardson pled guilty, the joint recommendation, and the sentence imposed. The judgment entry also included the following language:

After the imposition of sentence, the Court notified the Defendant, orally and in writing, of the possibility of the applicable periods of post-release control pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(3)(c), (d) and (e).

         {¶ 6} Richardson did not appeal his conviction and sentence.

         {¶ 7} On May 21, 2012, Richardson filed a motion requesting immediate discharge from custody and other motions related to that motion. Richardson argued that there had been no guilty plea and no judicial finding of guilt. Because of these perceived failures, Richardson argued that his right to a speedy trial had been violated.

         {¶ 8} The trial court denied the motion on September 19, 2013, and Richardson filed an appeal with this court. We affirmed the trial court's decision on February 25, 2014. Specifically, we held:

The transcript of guilty plea proceedings shows a guilty plea knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered. Richardson signed a written guilty plea form and acknowledged in court the charge and specification to which he was pleading guilty. He acknowledged the sentence he was to receive. The guilty plea and ...

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.