State v. Woodson , 2011 Ohio 1324 ( 2011 )

[Cite as State v. Woodson, 2011-Ohio-1324.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2010 CA 00101
ROZELL WOODSON
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 2007 CR 00070(B)
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 21, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOHN D. FERRERO BARRY T. WAKSER
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 200 West Tuscarawas Street
RENEE M. WATSON Suite 200
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR Canton, Ohio 44702
100 Central Plaza South, Suite 510
Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
Stark County, Case No. 2010 CA 00101 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant Rozell Woodson appeals from the decision of the Court of
Common Pleas, Stark County, which addressed his post-conviction motion to vacate or
set aside his sentence based on improper PRC notification. The relevant facts leading
to this appeal are as follows.
{¶2} In January 2007, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted appellant and a co-
defendant on one count of trafficking in cocaine, one count of possession of cocaine,
and one count of having weapons under disability.
{¶3} Before trial, appellant and the co-defendant filed motions to suppress.
After an evidentiary hearing, the motions to suppress were overruled.
{¶4} The co-defendant thereafter pled guilty. Appellant's case proceeded to a
jury trial, resulting in a finding of guilty as charged. He was sentenced to ten years on
each drug offense, to be served concurrently, and five years for having weapons under
disability, to be served consecutive to the drug charges. Additionally, the court imposed
the balance of appellant's post-release control time, two years and 144 days, to be
served consecutive to the drug and weapons sentences. The sentencing entry stated
that the trial court had advised appellant that post-release control was mandatory “up to
a maximum of five (5) years.”
{¶5} Appellant filed a direct appeal, challenging the denial of his motion to
suppress as his sole assigned error. On February 19, 2008, we affirmed the trial court’s
decision. See State v. Woodson, Stark App.No. 2007CA00051, 2008-Ohio-670.
Appellant’s attempts to further appeal his conviction were denied.
Stark County, Case No. 2010 CA 00101 3
{¶6} On January 4, 2010, appellant filed a motion to vacate or set aside his
sentence based on an allegation of improper PRC notification. The trial court conducted
a hearing on the motion on March 31, 2010. Appellant, via counsel, requested a full de
novo resentencing hearing and objected to a limited PRC hearing. The trial court
proceeded to advise appellant of his correct PRC obligations and essentially indicated it
would take appellant’s request for a de novo hearing under advisement.
{¶7} On April 1, 2010, the trial court issued a judgment entry denying
appellant’s aforesaid request. On April 5, 2010, the trial court issued a judgment entry
nunc pro tunc which corrected the PRC language in the 2007 sentencing entry.
{¶8} Appellant filed a notice of appeal on May 3, 2010. He herein raises the
following sole Assignment of Error:
{¶9} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT A DE
NOVO SENTENCING HEARING.”
{¶10} In his sole Assignment of Error, appellant maintains the trial court erred in
declining to conduct a de novo sentencing hearing when correcting his PRC notification.
We disagree.
{¶11} R.C. 2929.191 sets forth the mechanism for correcting a sentence that
fails to properly impose post-release control. Said provision applies prospectively to
sentences entered on or after July 11, 2006. State v. Pearson, Montgomery App.No.
23974, 2011-Ohio-245, f.n. 3, citing State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-
6434, ¶¶ 35-36. See, also, State v. Nesser, Licking App.No. 10CA61, 2011-Ohio-94, f.n.
1; State v. Samples, Stark App.No. 2010CA00122, 2011-Ohio-179, ¶ 27.
Stark County, Case No. 2010 CA 00101 4
{¶12} In the case sub judice, although appellant was clearly sentenced after July
11, 2006, he essentially contends that the Ohio Supreme Court’s plurality Singleton
decision is dicta in this instance, as Singleton did not involve a post-7/11/06 sentence.
He adds his assessment that the only parts of Singleton to have the support of at least
four Justices are the two paragraphs of the syllabus and the portion of the lead opinion
that holds R.C. 2929.191 does not apply retroactively.
{¶13} However, as aptly recognized by the Second District Court of Appeals, the
Ohio Supreme Court has already extended the purported “dicta” of Singleton regarding
the procedures of R.C. 2929.191 to cases where the defendant had been sentenced on
or after July 11, 2006. See State v. Marriott, 189 Ohio App.3d 98, 937 N.E.2d 614,
2010-Ohio-3115, ¶ 56, citing State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163, 926 N.E.2d 1239, 2010-
Ohio-1017, ¶ 214 and State v. Fuller, 124 Ohio St.3d 543, 925 N.E.2d 123, 2010-Ohio-
726.
{¶14} Accordingly, we hold appellant’s PRC was properly corrected pursuant to
statute, and his sole Assignment of Error is therefore overruled.
{¶15} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the Court
of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Hoffman, J., concur.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES
JWW/d 0308
Stark County, Case No. 2010 CA 00101 5
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
ROZELL WOODSON :
:
Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 2010 CA 00101
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to appellant.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES