State v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (11-18-2004) , 2004 Ohio 6111 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  • {¶ 32} I agree with the majority opinion in its disposition of appellant's first and second assignments of error. However, since I am not one of the members of this court that concludes a mandatory period of post-release control "is not a part of an offender's sentence," I respectfully disagree with its disposition of his third. See State v. Harris, Cuyahoga App. No. 81677, 2003-Ohio-1003.

    {¶ 33} In my view, a trial court cannot accomplish by negligence what cannot be accomplished intentionally. Therefore, I would sustain appellant's third assignment of error only in part, and would remand this case for a resentencing hearing, with instructions to

    {¶ 34} the trial court to fully apprise appellant of the statutory post-release requirements that apply to him.

Document Info

Docket Number: Case No. 84292.

Citation Numbers: 2004 Ohio 6111

Judges: TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, J.

Filed Date: 11/18/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021