State v. Flecha

Summary

The Ohio Twelfth District Court of Appeals reviewed Luis Leonardo Flecha’s jointly recommended sentence following his guilty plea to assault on a peace officer. The court held that the trial court failed to orally advise Flecha of the consequences of violating postrelease control and remanded for the limited purpose of providing the required notification. The court rejected Flecha’s challenge to the consecutive sentence, concluding that the statutory consecutive-sentence findings were not required for a jointly recommended sentence.

Holdings

1. A failure to comply with the mandatory oral postrelease-control notification requirements renders a jointly recommended sentence unauthorized by law for purposes of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), so the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the postrelease-control challenge.
2. When the plea and sentencing proceedings occur immediately and continuously as one combined hearing, notification during the plea colloquy that postrelease control may apply satisfies R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(e); the court need not repeat the notification during a separately denominated sentencing phase.
3. The trial court must orally advise the defendant at the sentencing hearing of the consequences of violating postrelease control. Written notification in the sentencing entry does not cure the failure to provide the required oral advisement.
4. A trial court is not required to make the findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when it imposes consecutive sentences that were jointly recommended by the defendant and the State.
5. The appellate court lacked jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) to review the jointly recommended consecutive sentence because it was authorized by law, jointly recommended, and imposed by the sentencing judge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) to review a jointly recommended sentence when the trial court failed to orally advise the defendant of the consequences of violating postrelease control.
2. Whether a postrelease-control notification given during a combined plea and sentencing hearing satisfies R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(e).
3. Whether failure to orally advise the defendant of the consequences of violating postrelease control under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f) invalidated the imposition of postrelease control.
4. Whether the trial court was required to make the findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing jointly recommended consecutive sentences.
5. Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the consecutive-sentence determination under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded