[Cite as State v. Brown, 2024-Ohio-2895.]

COURT OF APPEALS

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES:

: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.

 Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. W. Scott Gwing, J.

: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

-vs- :

:

STANLEY BROWN, : Case No. 2023 CA 0041

:

 Defendant - Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County 

Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 

2015-CR-0698

JUDGMENT: Vacated

DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 31, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

JODIE M. SCHUMACHER BRYON D. CORLEY

Prosecuting Attorney 3 North Main Street, Suite 602

38 S. Park Street Mansfield, Ohio 44902

Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0041 2

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} The appellant appeals the trial court’s decision denying his motion to vacate 

post release control sanctions and re-imposing five years of post release control at a 

hearing conducted after his release from prison. Appellee is the State of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

{¶2} On June 7, 2016, a jury found the appellant guilty of Aiding or Abetting Rape 

in violation of R.C. § 2907.02(A)(1)(c), a first-degree felony. On June 13, 2016, the trial 

court conducted a sentencing hearing at which the appellant was sentenced to a 

mandatory seven-year prison term and, pursuant to R.C. 2950.01, classified as a Tier III 

sex offender. In addition to his prison sentence and sex offender classification, the trial 

court imposed post release control sanctions upon the appellant, stating "You have five 

years mandatory Post Release Control." The trial court did not inform the appellant of the 

requirements of post release control, nor of the possible ramifications for violations 

thereof. 

{¶3} The appellant thereafter appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court 

improperly excluded probative evidence pursuant to Ohio’s rape shield statute, and that 

the jury’s finding that he was guilty of aiding and abetting rape was not supported by 

sufficient evidence. The appellee did not file an appeal or cross-appeal. This Court 

affirmed the appellant’s conviction in State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-1114 (5th Dist.). 

{¶4} The appellant completed his mandatory seven year term, and was released 

from prison on April 30, 2023. On May 16, 2023, he filed a motion with the trial court 

seeking to terminate or vacate the five year post release control sanction, arguing that 
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0041 3

the trial court did not properly advise him regarding post release control during the June 

13, 2016 sentencing hearing. 

{¶5} On June 9, 2023, the trial court conducted a hearing on the appellant’s 

motion and the issue of post release control. The trial court denied the appellant’s motion, 

and “re-sentenced” the appellant in order to fully apprise him of the conditions of post 

release control and potential sanctions for violations. The appellant moved for 

reconsideration of his May 16, 2023 motion, which the trial court overruled.

{¶6} The appellant filed a timely appeal, setting forth the following sole 

assignment of error:

{¶7} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING BROWN’S MOTION OF 

MAY 16, 2023.”

ANALYSIS

{¶8} The issue of re-sentencing an offender in order to properly impose post 

release control was recently addressed by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Bates, 

2022-Ohio-475. In Bates, the defendant was sentenced to a nine-year prison term for 

kidnapping, rape, and robbery, including a term of post release control (PCR.) During the 

original sentencing hearing the trial court did not advise the defendant of the requirements 

of PCR, nor of the potential ramifications of violating the terms of PCR. Ten years after 

he was sentenced, following a classification hearing on the defendant’s sexual-predator 

status at which the prosecutor raised an issue regarding the imposition of PCR, the trial 

court issued an entry regarding sentencing that included notice of the consequences of 

violating PCR. 
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0041 4

{¶9} The Supreme Court held that when a trial court does not properly advise a 

defendant regarding the requirements of PCR and the possible consequences for 

violating said requirements, it is the State that is aggrieved since it invalidates that portion 

of the sentence. The State did not appeal of that issue and, as a result, the PCR sanction 

was voidable. When the defendant sought to set aside the PCR sanction, the failure to 

appeal the trial court’s omission regarding the requirements of PCR was subject to res 

judicata. Accordingly, the PCR sanction could not be corrected via a “re-sentencing” 

hearing. 

{¶10} In the case sub judice, the trial court failed to provide notice to the appellant 

during the June 13, 2016 sentencing hearing of the requirements of PCR and the 

consequences of its violations. Based upon the reasoning set forth in Bates, it was the 

appellee's burden to raise this error on direct appeal in order to ensure that the PCR

sanction was properly imposed. Because the appellee failed to do so, res judicata bars 

collateral attack on the original sentence and precludes a new sentencing entry, entered

after the appellant has completed his prison term, providing notice of his PCR obligations 

and potential consequences for violations of said terms.

{¶11} We are bound by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bates, to which the facts 

and issues in this case are very similar. The trial court did not provide the appellant with 

notice regarding his PCR obligations during the original sentencing hearing, and 

attempted to correct this with a resentencing hearing conducted after the appellant’s 

release from prison. The trial court’s lack of notice to the appellant at the time of his initial 

sentencing hearing regarding the requirements of PCR and potential penalties for 

violations thereof rendered that portion of the appellant’s sentence voidable. Further, res 
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0041 5

judicata prevents the trial court from correcting this omission with a resentencing hearing, 

as it was the duty of the appellee to raise the issue of the inadequate notice on direct 

appeal if it desired that portion of the original sentence to be imposed. The appellee did 

not raise this issue on direct appeal, and therefore waived the right to raise it in a 

subsequent appeal. Based upon the Bates reasoning, the trial court had neither the 

authority nor the jurisdiction to re-impose post release control sanctions once the 

appellant sought to void the voidable PCR portion of his sentence after his release from 

prison. The appellant’s assignment of error is therefore sustained.

CONCLUSION

{¶12} Based upon the foregoing, the sanction of five years post release control 

imposed upon the appellant by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is hereby 

vacated.

By: Baldwin, J.

Delaney, P.J. and

Gwin, J. concur.