State ex rel. Davis v. Turner

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the dismissal of Randy H. Davis’s habeas corpus petition, holding that the erroneous inclusion of postrelease control in his sentencing entry rendered the sentence voidable rather than void and that the alleged sentencing error was not cognizable in habeas corpus. The court also affirmed the denial of Davis’s motion to vacate court costs, distinguishing liability for costs from the potential exemption of prison-account funds from execution.

Holdings

1. An erroneous postrelease-control provision in a sentencing entry does not render the sentence void when the sentencing court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction; the error makes the sentence voidable, not void. Because Davis's life sentence had not expired, he was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
2. Even assuming the trial court should have issued a corrected judgment entry, the alleged failure constituted a nonjurisdictional sentencing error that was not cognizable in habeas corpus. Davis also had an adequate ordinary remedy by appealing the denial of his motion for a corrected entry.
3. R.C. 2329.66(A)(3) concerns exemptions applicable to execution of a judgment; it does not provide a basis for vacating the assessment of court costs against a losing party in a civil case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the erroneous inclusion of postrelease control in Davis's sentencing entry rendered the judgment partially void and entitled him to habeas corpus relief.
2. Whether the trial court's failure to issue a corrected sentencing entry after vacating the postrelease-control provision made the conviction subject to habeas corpus relief under the one-document rule.
3. Whether R.C. 2329.66(A)(3)'s personal-funds exemption provided a basis to vacate the assessment of court costs.

Disposition

affirmed