Court Opinion

ID: 9383079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 15:17:43.297433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:43.377860
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Kellie, 2023-Ohio-1015.]

              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                              SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  MAHONING COUNTY

                                              STATE OF OHIO,

                                              Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                                      v.

                                              ERIC L. KELLIE,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                         OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                             Case No. 21 MA 0048

                                    Criminal Appeal from the
                        Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio
                                    Case No. 1997 CR 851

                                            BEFORE:
                    Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.

                                                 JUDGMENT:
                                                  Reversed.
                                                   Vacated.

Atty. Gina DeGenova, Mahoning County Prosecutor and Atty. Ralph M. Rivera, Assistant
Chief Prosecuting Attorney, Criminal Division, 21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor,
Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Atty. Wesley A. Johnston, P.O. Box 6041, Youngstown, Ohio 44501-6041, for Defendant-
Appellant

                                             Dated: March 24, 2023
                                                                                    –2–

WAITE, J.

       {¶1}   Appellant Eric L. Kellie appeals an April 23, 2021 judgment entry of the

Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas which added a postrelease control term into

his earlier October 28, 1999 sentencing entry. Appellant argues that postrelease control

cannot be imposed at this late date for several reasons. Appellant also argues that the

new entry incorrectly calculates his jail-time credit and that the original imposition of

consecutive sentences was erroneous. For the reasons provided, the judgment of the

trial court is reversed. The April 22, 2021 entry is vacated and the entry dated October

28, 1999 is reinstated.

                             Factual and Procedural History

       {¶2}   This case stems from a 1997 incident involving two separate shootings.

According to the limited facts in the record, the day after someone shot at Appellant and

missed, Appellant saw the shooter at a local store and approached him. The two men

argued. At one point, Appellant believed the man was reaching for his gun, so Appellant

pulled out his own gun and shot. However, he missed his intended victim and shot

another man, who died as a result.

       {¶3}   On November 14, 1997, Appellant was indicted on one count of aggravated

murder, a felony in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A) with two capital specifications and a

firearm specification. He was also charged with one count of attempted aggravated

murder with a firearm specification.

       {¶4}   On September 1, 1999, Appellant pleaded guilty to amended counts of

murder and felonious assault. On October 28, 1999, the trial court sentenced Appellant

Case No. 21 MA 0048
                                                                                        –3–

to an aggregate sentence of twenty-three years of incarceration. The court did not impose

postrelease control at the hearing or within the sentencing entry.

       {¶5}   At some point, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

(“ODRC”) apparently contacted either the state or the court with information about

Appellant’s upcoming parole hearing. ODRC noted its concern that postrelease control

had not been imposed and requested that the issue be corrected.              Based on this

suggestion, on April 23, 2021, the court held what it called a “resentencing.” At the time,

Appellant’s parole hearing was five days away. Based on this record, it is unclear whether

Appellant has since been released on parole.

       {¶6}   At the “resentencing” the court inquired whether postrelease control could

be imposed at this late date. The state advocated that a postrelease control term could

still be imposed while defense counsel opposed imposition of post release control. The

court stated “[h]ere’s what I’m going to do: I’m going to impose the post-release control.

If he doesn’t get out [on parole], you can file a motion for reconsideration of this whole

thing and I’ll look into the case law then.”       (4/23/21 Resentencing Hrg. Tr., p. 8.)

Accordingly, on that same date the court filed a new sentencing entry, imposing on

Appellant a postrelease control term. Relevant here, the court apparently simply copied

the remainder of the previous entry, which stated that Appellant would receive credit for

748 days served. By this point, however, Appellant had served approximately 8,225 days.

It is from this entry that Appellant timely appeals.

       {¶7}   This case has had a unique procedural history on appeal, as well. After

Appellant was granted a fourth extension of time to file his brief in this matter, he filed a

motion to supplement the record.        While his motion to supplement the record was

Case No. 21 MA 0048
                                                                                         –4–

pending, Appellant filed a motion for leave to file a brief instantar. Appellant then filed to

dismiss his motion for leave to file his brief instantar and the attached brief. We noted the

confusion, but denied that motion. On June 27, 2022, the state filed a confession of

judgment as to assignments of error one through three, but failed to address the

remaining assignments of error. Accordingly, we ordered the state to file a brief or a

confession of judgment regarding the remaining two assignments of error. The state

complied on November 15, 2022.

                            ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

       The Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to impose post-release control per ORC

       2967.28 upon this Defendant, as this was a hearing at Ohio Department of

       Corrections at their request, and the Trial Court improperly calculated the

       jail time credit of Appellant, and imposition violated the United States

       Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protections against

       imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense in

       successive proceedings.

                            ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

       The Trial court violated Appellant's 14th Amendment US Constitution and

       Ohio Constitution Due Process Rights by imposing the requirements of

       ORC 2967.28, when current Ohio case law requires that the imposition of

       ORC 2967.28 be immediately appealed in direct appeal, and that did not

       occur and could not occur in this instance.

Case No. 21 MA 0048
                                                                                        –5–

                           ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3

      The Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to impose post release control per ORC

      2967.28 upon this Defendant, as Defendant had served the felonious

      assault time and was no longer under jurisdiction of the court for same, and

      imposition of same violated as this was a hearing violated the United States

      Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protections against

      imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense in

      successive proceedings.

      {¶8}   Appellant argues in each of these assignments that the trial court lacked

jurisdiction to impose a postrelease control term, since the statute governing postrelease

control and corresponding law did not yet exist at the time of his plea and original

sentencing. Even so, Appellant cites to recent caselaw from the Ohio Supreme Court

holding that the imposition of postrelease control must be addressed on direct appeal,

which could not have occurred in this case because, again, the postrelease control law

did not exist at that time. Regardless, Appellant contests the imposition of postrelease

control in this matter because he has completed his prison term for felonious assault.

      {¶9}   The state confesses judgment as to the third argument. Because Appellant

has completed his sentence on the relevant conviction, postrelease control could not be

ordered. The state then claims that Appellant’s first two assignments are moot.

      {¶10} It is clear from this record that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence

Appellant to postrelease control and improperly “resentenced” Appellant. As there was

no legal support for the court to enter a new sentence, the sentence is invalid and must

Case No. 21 MA 0048
                                                                                       –6–

be vacated. Hence, Appellant’s first, second, and third assignments of error have merit

and are sustained and the April 29, 2021 entry is hereby vacated.

                            ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4

       The Trial Court improperly calculated the jail time credit of Appellant.

       {¶11} Appellant argues that the court awarded him 748 days of credit when he

has served 8,225 days.

       {¶12} It appears that the state may have misunderstood Appellant’s argument.

The state argues that Appellant should have challenged his award of jail-time credit on

direct appeal. However, Appellant does not take issue with the original calculation of jail-

time credit by the court. Instead, he contends the new sentencing entry does not reflect

the time he has served since his original sentence. The state also observes that the

Department of Corrections is obligated to properly credit Appellant for any time he has

served under their supervision.

       {¶13} Because the trial court’s April 22, 2021 judgment entry is vacated,

Appellant’s original sentencing entry of October 28, 1999 is reinstated and this

assignment of error is moot.

                            ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5

       The Trial Court failed to expressly make the findings required in ORC

       2929.14, give the reasons supporting those findings at the time of

       sentencing, and include said findings in its subsequent judgment entry.

Case No. 21 MA 0048
                                                                                        –7–

       {¶14} Appellant challenges the trial court’s original imposition of consecutive

sentences, found in both sentencing entries.         Appellant does not provide specific

arguments and generally presents conclusory statements making it difficult to evaluate

his arguments.

       {¶15} The state responds by arguing that res judicata bars Appellant’s argument,

as he should have and could have challenged the imposition of consecutive sentences

on direct appeal following his original sentencing in 1999.

       {¶16} The state is correct in that Appellant was required to challenge the original

imposition of consecutive sentences by means of a direct appeal of his 1999 sentencing.

As such, Appellant’s fifth assignment of error is without merit and is overruled.

                                        Conclusion

       {¶17} Appellant argues for several reasons that postrelease control was

improperly imposed decades after his original sentencing. Appellant also argues that the

new entry incorrectly calculates his jail-time credit, and that the imposition of consecutive

sentences was erroneous. For the reasons provided, the judgment of the trial court is

reversed.     The April 22, 2021 entry is vacated and the October 28, 1999 entry is

reinstated.

Robb, J., concurs.

Hanni, J., concurs.

Case No. 21 MA 0048
[Cite as State v. Kellie, 2023-Ohio-1015.]

        For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, Appellant’s first, second

and third assignments of error are sustained, his fourth assignment is moot and his fifth

assignment is overruled. It is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment

of the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, is reversed. We hereby vacate

the April 22, 2021 entry and reinstate the October 28, 1999 entry in this matter. Costs to

be taxed against the Appellee.

        A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in

this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a

certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.

                                             NOTICE TO COUNSEL

        This document constitutes a final judgment entry.