State v. Payne

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Payne, 2012-Ohio-3976.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 12AP-128 v. : (C.P.C. No. 03CR-08-5424) Ronald D. Payne, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Defendant-Appellant. : D E C I S I O N Rendered on August 30, 2012 Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for appellee. Ronald D. Payne, pro se. APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. FRENCH, J. {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Ronald D. Payne ("appellant"), appeals the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his motion for a new sentencing hearing. For the following reasons, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND {¶ 2} In April 2005, appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, kidnapping, rape, and felonious assault. At the plea hearing, the court told appellant that he would be on post-release control for five years after he is released from prison and that he could be re-imprisoned for violating the conditions of post-release control. No. 12AP-128 2 Appellant also signed a plea form indicating that he understood he would be on postrelease control for five years and that he was aware of the sanctions for violating postrelease control conditions. During sentencing, the court discussed post-release control with appellant, and information about post-release control was contained in a notice of imprisonment form that appellant signed. Finally, in the sentencing entry, the court stated that it notified appellant of "the applicable periods of post-release control." (April 28, 2005 Judgment Entry, 2.) {¶ 3} On June 2, 2010, appellant filed a motion for a new sentencing hearing. He argued that the post-release control part of his sentence is void because it was not imposed properly. The trial court denied the motion. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶ 4} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and now assigns the following as error: The trial court erred when it denied [appellant] a new sentencing hearing to correct a void sentence. III. DISCUSSION {¶ 5} In his single assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new sentencing hearing. We disagree. {¶ 6} Appellant contends that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because post-release control was not properly imposed when he was sentenced in 2005. The trial court had to notify appellant about post-release control when it sentenced him to prison, and it was required to incorporate the notice in the sentencing entry. See State v. Williams, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-1090, 2009-Ohio-3233, ¶ 7. This court previously concluded that post-release control was properly imposed when (1) the trial court orally informed the defendant about post-release control, (2) the defendant signed a plea form and notice of imprisonment discussing post-release control, and (3) the sentencing entry stated that the defendant was informed of the applicable period of post-release control. State v. Nooks, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-1033, 2011-Ohio-4104, ¶ 9-12. {¶ 7} Here, the trial court notified appellant about post-release control when it accepted his plea and sentenced him to prison. Appellant signed a plea form and notice No. 12AP-128 3 of imprisonment discussing post-release control. And, the sentencing entry states that appellant was notified of the applicable period of post-release control. Consequently, pursuant to Nooks, the trial court properly imposed post-release control as a part of appellant's sentence. Therefore, the trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion for a new sentencing hearing, and we overrule his single assignment of error. IV. CONCLUSION {¶ 8} Having overruled appellant's single assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Judgment affirmed. BROWN, P.J., and KLATT, J., 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.