from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas No. 03CR-1670
brief: Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L.
Taylor, for appellee.
brief: James Watson, for appellant.
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 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.
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
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 ...