State v. Ross

Summary

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals of Ohio reviewed Toriano Christopher Ross Jr.'s sentence following his guilty plea to second-degree felony possession of cocaine. The court held that a discrepancy in the postrelease-control term stated in the judgment entry should be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry, rejected challenges concerning postrelease-control supervision costs, and upheld the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the limited purpose of issuing the corrected entry.

Holdings

1. A discrepancy in the written judgment entry's postrelease-control term was a clerical error that did not make Ross's sentence contrary to law or require resentencing. The trial court could correct the error through a nunc pro tunc entry accurately reflecting the term announced at sentencing.
2. Postrelease-control supervision costs are not punishment and are not part of a defendant's sentence for purposes of the physical-presence requirement in Criminal Rule 43(A). Nevertheless, when such costs are imposed in the judgment entry without informing the defendant at sentencing, the defendant is deprived of the opportunity to request a waiver. In this case, remand was unnecessary because the trial court had already considered Ross's present and future ability to pay all financial obligations imposed.
3. Postrelease-control supervision costs are authorized under Ohio Revised Code 2929.18(A)(5)(a).
4. The Reagan Tokes Law does not violate an offender's constitutional right to a jury trial, the separation-of-powers doctrine, or procedural due process. The court therefore rejected Ross's constitutional challenges and reaffirmed its prior holdings unless and until the Ohio Supreme Court holds otherwise.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the discrepancy between the minimum postrelease-control term announced at sentencing and the term stated in the judgment entry required resentencing or could be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry.
2. Whether postrelease-control supervision costs could be included in the judgment entry when the trial court did not expressly impose them at the sentencing hearing.
3. Whether postrelease-control supervision costs are authorized by Ohio Revised Code 2929.18(A)(5)(a).
4. Whether the Reagan Tokes Law violates the constitutional rights to a jury trial and procedural due process or violates the separation-of-powers doctrine.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded