State v. Crosky

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State v. Crosky, 2010-Ohio-5264.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : No. 10AP-399 (C.P.C. No. 04CR-05-2970) John R. Crosky, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Defendant-Appellant. : D E C I S I O N Rendered on October 28, 2010 Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for appellee. John R. Crosky, pro se. APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas TYACK, P.J. {¶1} John R. Crosky is appealing from the trial court's failure to re-sentence him after he filed a motion entitled "Motion to Impose Valid Sentence." He assigns a single error for our consideration: The sentences are void for failure to comply with Statutory requirements regarding Postrelease Control. {¶2} This is Crosky's third appeal. In his first appeal, we reduced the number of charges for which he was convicted and remanded the case for a new sentencing. No. 10AP-399 2 Following his second sentencing, he appealed again and we affirmed the second set of sentences. At each of his sentencing hearings, he was advised that he was subject to five years of mandatory post-release control ("PRC"). {¶3} Nothing about the trial court proceedings makes Crosky's sentence void. Even if there were potential defects in the sentences, the defects should have been presented to the court in Crosky's previous appeals. They were not. {¶4} The sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. BRYANT and FRENCH, JJ., concur. ____________

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.