Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 03-27-2021
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO v. DARIUS REGINALD THOMPSON
Case Number: 9-20-19
Judge: John R. Willamowski
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
MARION COUNTY
Plaintiff's Attorney: Nathan R. Heiser
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Dayton, OH - Criminal defense attorney represented Darius R. Thompson with appealing the judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to resentence him over six years after he had completed his term of community control.
This case is about whether the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence
Thompson after his term of community control had been completed and terminated.
On September 1, 2011, the State issued a four count indictment filed in Trial Case
#11-CR-490, alleging that Thompson had committed violations of R.C.
2925.03(A)(2), R.C. 2907.322(A)(1), R.C. 2907.322(A)(5), R.C. 2907.323(A)(1),
and R.C. 2907.323(A)(3). Doc. 1. On December 20, 2011, Thompson pled guilty
to violations of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), R.C. 2907.322(A)(5), and R.C.
2907.323(A)(3). Doc. 21.
{¶3} On February 16, 2012, the trial court ordered Thompson to serve a two
year sentence on community control in Trial Case #11-CR-490. Doc. 21. He began
serving his community control sentence on March 5, 2012. Doc. 24. Two years
later, after Thompson had completed his sentence, the trial court issued a judgment
entry on March 13, 2014 that released Thompson from community control. Doc.
24. This judgment entry declared that Thompson was “released from Community Case No. 9-20-19
-3-
Control in the above entitled case wholly, fully, and completely forthwith.” Doc.
24. The trial court further ordered that Thompson “be restored to all rights of
citizenship * * *.” Doc. 24.
{¶4} Subsequently, Thompson was imprisoned for a different offense in
another case. Doc. 27. Tr. 9. After his release in 2019, the trial court discovered
that it had failed to notify Thompson that he was required to register pursuant to
R.C. 2950.01, et seq., for the charges associated with Trial Case #11-CR-490. Doc.
27. The trial court failed to order Thompson to comply with this requirement during
the course of Trial Case #11-CR-490. Doc. 21, 24. In fact, the trial court made no
mention of this requirement in its February 16, 2012 sentencing entry or in its March
13, 2014 judgment entry that terminated Thompson’s term of community control.
Doc. 21, 24. See Doc. 27.
{¶5} On February 6, 2020, the trial court sua sponte ordered Thompson to
appear for a hearing in Trial Case #11-CR-490 on March 12, 2020. Doc. 25. At
this hearing, the trial court requested that the parties submit briefs on the issue of
whether it had jurisdiction to resentence Thompson in Trial Case #11-CR-490 and
impose the requirements of R.C. 2950.01, et seq. Doc. 27. The State then filed a
brief that argued the trial court did not have jurisdiction to resentence Thompson.
Doc. 27. The State noted that
[t]here is no indication that the Defendant was notified of his
registration requirement and it is not included on the Judgment
Entry of Sentencing. On March 13, 2014 the Defendant was Case No. 9-20-19
-4-
released from Community Control Sanctions and this matter was
closed.
Doc. 27. The State, agreeing with the arguments of the Defense, concluded that
Thompson’s sentence could not be changed to impose the requirements of R.C.
2950.01, et seq. Doc. 27.
{¶6} Nonetheless, on May 4, 2020, the trial court held a resentencing hearing
for Thompson. Doc. 30. The following exchange occurred at this resentencing
hearing:
[Trial court]: That’s my understanding of how this matter came
to the attention of the Marion authorities is upon his release he
was advised [of the requirements of R.C. 2950.01, et seq.] and I
think that was news to Mr. Thompson.
[Thompson]: Yeah, I didn’t—I had never heard that before, ever.
[Trial court]: Right. And I tend to believe that, sir. That there’s
nothing in the file to show that you were advised of this obligation
and so I imagine years later when you were released from prison
on some totally separate matter, when they advised you that you
needed to do this, it was shocking to you.
Tr. 9. The trial court stated its intention to order Thompson to follow the applicable
requirements and then notified him of the relevant conditions. Tr. 9-11, 18-21.
{¶7} After this limited resentencing hearing, the trial court issued a judgment
entry on May 15, 2020 that included the following statement:
Based upon the record, the original sentencing judge did not
inform [Thompson] of his registration obligations. [Another]
Former Judge * * * also addressed this case and also failed to
address this issue. Case No. 9-20-19
-5-
Doc. 30. The trial court concluded this judgment entry by ordering Thompson to
register in compliance with R.C. 2950.01, et seq. Doc. 30.
Assignment of Error
{¶8} The appellant filed his notice of appeal on June 11, 2020. Doc. 31. On
appeal, Thompson raises the following assignment of error:
The trial court erred when it ordered the defendant to register as
a Tier II Sex Offender six years after his sentence terminated.
Thompson argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to impose the
requirements of R.C. 2950.01, et seq., after his sentence had been completely served
and terminated. See Doc. 30.
Legal Standard
{¶9} “Jurisdiction is a prerequisite to a valid judgment.” State ex rel. Post v.
Speck, 185 Ohio App.3d 828, 2010-Ohio-105, 925 N.E.2d 1042, ¶ 10 (3d Dist.).
Appellate courts apply a de novo standard of review when determining whether a
trial court had jurisdiction to render a decision. State v. Stuber, 3d Dist. Allen No.
1-17-38, 2018-Ohio-2809, ¶ 13. “De novo review is independent, without deference
to the lower court’s decision.” State v. Hudson, 2013-Ohio-647, 986 N.E.2d 1128,
¶ 27 (3d Dist.).
Legal Analysis
{¶10} In State v. Holdcroft, the Ohio Supreme Court “consider[ed] when a
trial court has the authority to correct a sentence.” State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio Case No. 9-20-19
-6-
St.3d 526, 2013-Ohio-5014, 1 N.E.3d 382, ¶ 1, reversed in part by State v. Harper,
160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, ¶ 43. See State v. Hudson,
161 Ohio St.3d 166, 2020-Ohio-3849, 161 N.E.2d 608, ¶ 12 (acknowledging the
reversal of Holdcroft). The trial court had “fail[ed] to properly impose statutorily
mandated postrelease control as part of [the] defendant’s sentence * * *.” Holdcroft
at ¶ 7. After the defendant had completed the prison term for the offense that carried
this postrelease control sanction, the trial court held a resentencing hearing “to
correct its errors related to postrelease control.” Id. at ¶ 3.
{¶11} In Holdcroft, the Ohio Supreme Court announced three guiding
principles for its determination:
First, when a sentence is subject to direct review, it may be
modified; second, when the prison-sanction portion of a sentence
that also includes a void sanction has not been completely served,
the void sanction may be modified; and third, when the entirety
of a prison sanction has been served, the defendant’s expectation
in finality in his sentence becomes paramount, and his sentence
for that crime may no longer be modified.
Holdcroft at ¶ 18. In other words, after sentencing, “either the defendant or the state
may challenge any aspect of a sentence so long as a timely appeal is filed.” Id.
After “the time for filing an appeal has run, Ohio courts are limited to correcting a
void sanction,” even though other challenges to the sentence may be barred by res
judicata. Id. But after “the prison-sanction portion of a sentence for a crime has
been fully served,” a trial court has no authority to “further modify[] the sentence
for that crime in any way.” Id. Case No. 9-20-19
-7-
{¶12} Importantly, the Ohio Supreme Court based its second and third
principles on different foundations. The
sanction-correction rule is based on principles of res judicata—
while a void sanction may be modified, a valid sanction generally
cannot. [State v.] Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942
N.E.2d 332, at ¶ 17 [(reversed by Harper, supra)]. But once a valid
prison sanction has been served, it is no longer res judicata that
acts as a bar to modification; rather, the court has lost jurisdiction
to modify the sentence.
(Emphasis sic.) Holdcroft at ¶ 14. The Ohio Supreme Court then concluded that
[n]either this court’s jurisprudence nor Ohio’s criminalsentencing statutes allow a trial court to resentence a defendant
for an offense when the defendant has already completed the
prison sanction for that offense. It is irrelevant whether the
defendant is still in prison for other offenses.
Id. at ¶ 19. Since the trial court had resentenced the defendant after he had
completed the relevant prison sentence, the Ohio Supreme Court ordered the trial
court “to vacate the imposition of postrelease control * * *.” Id.
{¶13} In State v. Harper, the Ohio Supreme Court “realigned [its]
jurisprudence with the traditional understanding of void and voidable sentences.”
Harper, supra, at ¶ 43. Previously,
[i]n cases in which the trial court inadvertently failed to properly
impose postrelease control in the sentence, [the Supreme Court]
provided a remedy by holding that the failure rendered the
sentence—or part of the sentence—void and subject to correction
at any time before the expiration of the original sentence.
Id. at ¶ 2. The Supreme Court then returned to the traditional rule governing void
and voidable sentences: Case No. 9-20-19
-8-
[A] void judgment is one entered by a court lacking subjectmatter jurisdiction over the case or personal jurisdiction over the
parties. See Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159
N.E.3d 248, at ¶ 4; State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 178, 226
N.E.2d 104 (1967); Ex parte Shaw, 7 Ohio St. 81, 82 (1857);
Sheldon’s Lessee v. Newton, 3 Ohio St. 494, 499 (1854). When a
case is within a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and the parties
are properly before the court, any error in the exercise of its
jurisdiction renders the court’s judgment voidable, not void.
Harper at ¶ 26; Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 12. In general, a voidable judgment may
be set aside only if successfully challenged on direct appeal.
Harper at ¶ 26.
Hudson, supra, ¶ 11. Thus, in Harper, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned the
foundations of the second principle announced in Holdcroft: “when the prisonsanction portion of a sentence that also includes a void sanction has not been
completely served, the void sanction may be modified * * *.” Holdcroft, supra, at
¶ 18. This second principle did not survive the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in
Harper. Harper, supra, at ¶ 4. See Hudson, supra, at ¶ 12.
{¶14} However, after reviewing Harper and its progeny, we conclude that
this line of cases has not altered the foundations of the third principle announced in
Holdcroft: once a defendant has completed his or her sentence, a trial court does not
have jurisdiction to resentence that defendant. Holdcroft, supra, at ¶ 14, 18. Harper
affected the ability of trial courts to resentence a defendant before his or her sentence
has been completed. Harper, supra, at ¶ 42-43. But Harper does not appear to
affect the jurisdictional limitations on a trial court’s ability to resentence a defendant Case No. 9-20-19
-9-
after his or her sentence has been completed. See State v. Ingels, 1st Dist. Hamilton
Nos. C-180469, C-180470, C-180471, 2020-Ohio-4367, ¶ 10.
{¶15} Further, we also note that the third principle in Holdcroft is consistent
with the reasons that the Ohio Supreme Court gave for overturning the second
principle in Holdcroft. In State v. Henderson, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that
the reason for the jurisprudential realignment in Harper was to “restore
predictability and finality to trial-court judgments and criminal sentences.” State v.
Henderson, 2020-Ohio-4784, --- N.E.3d ---, ¶ 33. The third principle recognizes a
jurisdictional limitation on the ability of a trial court to resentence a defendant after
a sentence has been completed. This limitation protects the “predictability and
finality” of “trial-court judgments and criminal sentences.” Id. For these reasons,
we will follow the third principle from Holdcroft.
{¶16} Turning to the facts of the case before this Court, the trial court held a
sua sponte resentencing hearing over six years after the trial court had released
Thompson “wholly, fully, and completely” from his community control sanction.
Doc. 24, 27. While Holdcroft and Harper address the issue of postrelease control,
the third principle of Holdcroft has been applied in the context of the registration
requirements of R.C. 2950.01, et seq. State v. Rucker, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C180606, 2019-Ohio-4490, ¶ 18; State v. Spicer, 5th Dist. Perry No. 2021-Ohio-386,
¶ 9, 18; State v. Metcalf, 2016-Ohio-4923, 68 N.E.3d 371, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.); State v.
Halsey, 2016-Ohio-7990, 74 N.E.3d 915, ¶ 31-33 (12th Dist.). Since Thompson Case No. 9-20-19
-10-
had completed his sentence in full, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resentence
him. Holdcroft, supra, at ¶ 14, 18-19. See State v. Hilliard, 5th Richland No.
15CA16, 2015-Ohio-5324, ¶ 42. As such, his sole assignment of error is sustained.
Outcome: Having found error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas
is reversed. Further, the judgment entry resentencing Thompson must be vacated.
This cause of action is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: