State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St. 3d 21, 2004-Ohio-6085

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court considers whether a trial court must notify a felony offender about postrelease control at the sentencing hearing when the notice is included in the sentencing entry. The court holds that both hearing notification and incorporation into the journal entry are required, and that failure to provide the hearing notification requires vacation of the sentence and remand for resentencing. The court also addresses the Fourth Amendment validity of the investigative stop and protective search in Lenorris Jordan’s case.

Holdings

1. When sentencing a felony offender to imprisonment, the trial court must notify the offender at the sentencing hearing about postrelease control and must also incorporate that notice into the sentencing entry. Inclusion of the notice only in the entry does not satisfy R.C. 2929.19(B)(3).
2. When the trial court fails to provide postrelease-control notification at the sentencing hearing but includes it in the sentencing entry, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing; postrelease control is not simply eliminated from the sentence.
3. A failure to advise a defendant about postrelease control at the plea hearing may in some circumstances support vacating the plea, but it does not authorize an appellate court to modify or remove postrelease control from an otherwise unlawful sentence.
4. The officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop of Jordan because the partially corroborated anonymous tip, the high-drug-activity location, Jordan's apparent warning shout, and his companion's immediate flight, considered together, created reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
5. The officer had reasonable suspicion that Jordan was armed and dangerous and was therefore justified in conducting a limited protective pat-down search.
6. Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution did not provide greater protection under these circumstances, and the investigative stop and protective search were also valid under the Ohio Constitution.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a felony sentencing court complies with R.C. 2929.19(B)(3) by including postrelease-control notification in the sentencing entry while failing to give the notification at the sentencing hearing.
2. Whether the proper remedy for that sentencing error is elimination of postrelease control or vacation of the sentence and remand for resentencing.
3. Whether the officers had reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigative stop of Jordan under the Fourth Amendment and Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
4. Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion that Jordan was armed and dangerous sufficient to justify a protective pat-down search.

Disposition

other