Opinion ID: 6316245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Majority Creates More Confusion

Text: {¶ 67} The majority largely ignores these statutes. In addition, it reaches a result that it not supportable even on its own terms. In the process, it adds more confusion to this body of law. {¶ 68} Recall the proposition of law we accepted: “The failure to include a sentence of post-release control when imposing a prison sentence must be corrected on direct appeal and failure to do so precludes supervision on [postrelease control] at the end of the prison sentence.” In his memorandum in support of jurisdiction, Bates asked this court to hold that the failure to impose postrelease control at the time of sentencing is a voidable error that the state must challenge on direct appeal. {¶ 69} The majority answers only the first part of the question. It says that a postrelease-control error may be corrected only on direct appeal and that such an error must be appealed by the state. It then punts on the second part of the question, saying that it “decline[s] to address the effect of the trial court’s improper 2008 imposition of postrelease control on the APA’s ability to supervise Bates based on the facts and arguments before us,” majority opinion, ¶ 31. The problem is that we cannot answer the first part of the question without also addressing the second. {¶ 70} The first part of the question—who must appeal a postreleasecontrol error—turns on who has been “aggrieved” by the error. In Bates’s view, an inadequate postrelease-control notification means that postrelease control has not been imposed at all and that the state loses any opportunity to supervise the offender. In this formulation, the state is the aggrieved party and must appeal. The state’s position is that an incomplete explanation about postrelease control in a sentencing entry does not prevent the state from placing an offender on postrelease control. Under this view, Bates is the one who would have benefitted from a sentencing entry explaining the consequences of a violation of postrelease control and whether it was mandatory. Therefore, it is Bates who is aggrieved by a 26 January Term, 2022 procedural error in the imposition of postrelease control and he is the one who must appeal. {¶ 71} The majority’s opinion is internally contradictory. In the first part of its opinion, it suggests that unless the sentencing judge strictly satisfies all of the judicially created requirements for the imposition of postrelease control, an offender may not be supervised at all. It says “without postrelease control properly imposed, his liberty would not be restrained after he served his prison sentence and he would not be under the obligations associated with supervision.” Majority opinion at ¶ 21. But later on it retreats from this pronouncement, telling us that it “cannot reach the effect of the trial court’s improper 2008 imposition of postrelease control on the APA’s ability to supervise Bates today,” majority opinion at ¶ 27. The reader is left befuddled. {¶ 72} I, of course, disagree that the state is the aggrieved party here. As I explained in the previous section, the statutory scheme plainly allows postrelease control to be imposed on Bates notwithstanding the purported errors committed by the sentencing judge. Because the APA could supervise Bates regardless of whether he received the judicially created Grimes advisement, the advisement would have only served to benefit Bates by providing additional notice about the terms of his supervision. Thus, Bates was the aggrieved party and had the burden to appeal the 2008 sentence. {¶ 73} Indeed, the majority’s conclusion that the state must appeal the omission of the judicially created Grimes requirements directly contradicts our recent jurisprudence on this issue. In Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, we considered a deficiency like the one before us here—the failure to include in the sentencing entry language informing the defendant of the consequences of violating postrelease control. We determined that such an error was voidable and must be raised on direct appeal. In so holding, we explicitly “reject[ed] the notion that the failure to incorporate a notice of the consequences of 27 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO a violation of postrelease control in the sentencing entry as required by Grimes renders the sentence void to the extent that it does not properly impose postrelease control.” Harper at ¶ 6. And we indicated that it was the defendant who must appeal such an error, concluding that “because Harper could have raised his argument that the trial court failed to properly impose postrelease control on appeal, it is now barred by the doctrine of res judicata.” Id. at ¶ 41; see also Hudson, 161 Ohio St.3d 166, 2020-Ohio-3849, 161 N.E.3d 608, at ¶ 16.