[Cite as State v. Thomas, 2017-Ohio-264.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

v. : No. 16AP-580 

 (C.P.C. No. 12CR-53) 

Andre L. Thomas, : 

 (ACCELERATED CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on January 24, 2017 

 

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

Taylor, for appellee. 

On brief: Andre L. Thomas, pro se. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

TYACK, P.J. 

{¶ 1} Andre L. Thomas is appealing from the denial of his motion requesting a 

new sentencing hearing. He assigns a single assignment of error for our consideration: 

The trial court abused its discretion when it denied 

defendant's motion to vacate his sentence because of it being 

void, it violates the Defendant's right to due process. 

{¶ 2} Thomas entered into a plea bargain in April 2012. He entered a guilty plea 

to two charges of rape of a child. Included in the plea bargain was a joint 

recommendation of the State of Ohio and the defense that Thomas be sentenced to 12 

years of incarceration. Thomas did, in fact, receive a sentence of 12 years of incarceration, 

plus a statutorily required period of post-release control of 5 years. 

{¶ 3} Four years later, Thomas filed a motion asking for another sentencing 

hearing based upon an allegation that he was deprived of due process of law because the 
No. 16AP-580 2 

sentencing entry journalized after his sentencing could be construed as making his period 

of post-release control optional in its length as opposed to mandatory. He argues that his 

original sentence was therefore void. 

{¶ 4} First, Thomas has failed to file a transcript of the sentencing hearing. "It is 

well established that an appellant has the burden of demonstrating from the record the 

errors he complains of." Conway v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Ohio App.2d 233, 236 (8th 

Dist.1976). "[I]n the absence of all the relevant evidence, a reviewing court must indulge 

the presumption of regularity of the proceedings and the validity of the judgment in the 

trial court. It is the appellant's responsibility to include all the evidence in the appellate 

record so that the claimed error is demonstrated to the reviewing court." Columbus v. 

Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68 (10th Dist.1987). We must presume then that Thomas was 

properly notified of his mandatory post-release control period of five years. 

{¶ 5} Second, the sentencing entry states: 

The Court, pursuant to this entry, notified the Defendant 

that he will, at the option of the Adult Parol Authority, 

receive a period of post-release control of 5 years and, if he

violates post-release control his sentence will be extended 

administratively in accordance with State law. 

(Emphasis sic.) (May 1, 2012 Jgmt. Entry at 2.) 

{¶ 6} The wording of the sentencing entry does not render the original sentencing 

void, nor does it violate Thomas' right to due process of law. While the sentencing entry is 

ambiguous as to whether post-release control is mandatory, it is clear that Thomas is 

subject to post-release control. Consequently, the entry is sufficient to afford notice to a 

reasonable person that the court was authorizing post-release control as part of their 

sentence. Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425, 2006-Ohio-5082, ¶ 51. "A reasonable 

person in the position of any of the petitioners would have had sufficient notice that 

postrelease control could be imposed following the expiration of the person's sentence. 

Any challenge to the propriety of the sentencing court's imposition of postrelease control 

in the entries could have been raised on appeal." Id.

{¶ 7} Thomas received the sentence he bargained for. It is presumed that he was 

notified in open court that he would have his 12-year sentence of incarceration followed 
No. 16AP-580 3 

by a 5-year period of post-release control. Thomas was also informed on his signed guilty 

pleas that he understood "that the following period of post-release control is applicable[:] 

Felony Sex Offense—Five Years—Mandatory." (Entry of Guilty Plea at 2.) This conclusion 

is consistent with the preeminent purpose of R.C. 2967.28—that offenders subject to postrelease control know at sentencing that their liberty could continue to be restrained after 

serving their initial sentences. R.C. 2967.28; Watkins at ¶ 52. 

{¶ 8} If Thomas thought the words of the judgment entry which journalized his 

agreed sentence were wrong, he should have appealed four years ago. Patterson v. Ohio 

Adult Parole Auth., 120 Ohio St.3d 311, 2008-Ohio-6147, ¶ 8; Watkins at ¶ 51. 

{¶ 9} The trial court did not err in denying his motion for a new sentencing 

hearing. The sole assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is 

affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

BROWN and HORTON, JJ., concur.