State v. Pryor

[Cite as State v. Pryor, 2011-Ohio-4383.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
-vs-
Case No. 11-CA-12
ANTHONY C. PRYOR
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Common
Pleas Court, Case No. 02-CR-57
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 25, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
GREGG MARX DAVID A. SAMS
Prosecuting Attorney P.O. Box 40
Fairfield County, Ohio West Jefferson, Ohio 43162
239 W. Main, Ste. 101
Lancaster, Ohio 43130
Fairfield County, Case No. 11-CA-12 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Anthony C. Pryor appeals the February 2, 2011
Judgment Entry entered by the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas resentencing
him to include imposition of a five year mandatory term of post-release control. Plaintiff-
appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
{¶2} On February 15, 2002, the Fairfield County Grand Jury indicted Appellant
on four counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02; four counts of complicity to commit
rape, in violation of 2907.02 and R.C. 2923.03; two counts of kidnapping, in violation of
R.C. 2905.01; and one count of abduction, in violation of R.C. 2905.02. Said charges
arose from various incidents involving Appellant's wife and her children, Appellant's
stepchildren.
{¶3} A jury trial commenced on September 24, 2002. The jury found Appellant
guilty of all counts except two of the four rape counts. By Judgment Entry filed October
31, 2002, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of three life
sentences.
{¶4} On February 2, 2004, this Court remanded the matter to the trial court for
resentencing on the issue of post-release control. State v. Pryor, Fairfield App. No.
02CA-91, 2004-Ohio-609.
{¶5} On February 2, 2011, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing in
order to impose a five year term of mandatory post-release control. Prior to the hearing,
Appellant moved the court for a de novo sentencing hearing, which the trial court
1
A rendition of the underlying facts is unnecessary for our disposition of this appeal.
Fairfield County, Case No. 11-CA-12 3
denied. Via Judgment Entry of the same date, the trial court resentenced Appellant to
properly impose the mandatory five year term of post-release control.
{¶6} Appellant now appeals, assigning as error:
{¶7} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN DENYING DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT A DE NOVO RESENTENCING HEARING IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE
PROCESS AND EX POST FACTO CLAUSES OF THE OHIO AND UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTIONS.”
{¶8} Upon review, we find the trial court properly overruled Appellant’s motion
for a de novo resentencing hearing and limited the hearing to the imposition of post-
release control, pursuant to State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St. 3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, and
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St. 3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238.
{¶9} In Fischer, the Ohio Supreme Court held,
{¶10} “As the first dissenting opinion in Bezak observed, ‘[j]ust as Saxon held
that a complete resentencing is not required when a defendant on appeal prevails on a
challenge only as to one offense in a multiple-offense case, a complete de novo
resentencing is not required when a defendant prevails only as to the postrelease-
control aspect of a particular sentence. In this situation, the postrelease-control
component of the sentence is fully capable of being separated from the rest of the
sentence as an independent component, and the limited resentencing must cover only
the postrelease control. It is only the postrelease-control aspect of the sentence that is
void and that must be rectified. The remainder of the sentence, which the defendant did
not successfully challenge, remains valid under the principles of res judicata. See
Saxon [109 Ohio St. 3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824], at ¶ 17–19.’ Bezak, 114
Fairfield County, Case No. 11-CA-12 4
Ohio St. 3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961, at ¶ 21–22 (O'Connor, J., dissenting,
joined by Lundberg Stratton, J.). ***”
{¶11} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶12} The February 2, 2011 Judgment Entry of the Fairfield County Court of
Common Pleas resentencing Appellant in order to properly impose the mandatory term
of post-release control is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Farmer, J. and
Edwards, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
Fairfield County, Case No. 11-CA-12 5
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
ANTHONY C. PRYOR :
:
Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 11-CA-12
For the reason stated in our accompanying Opinion, the February 2, 2011
Judgment Entry entered by the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas resentencing
Appellant to properly impose the mandatory term of post-release control is affirmed.
Costs to Appellant.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
s/ Julie A. Edwards___________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS