Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

State v. Harrison

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 2009No. 2008-0331Published

1Concurring in the judgmentLanzinger, J.

{¶ 63} I concur in judgment only. I do not agree that when mandatory postrelease control is not imposed a sentence is “void,” meaning that the court lacked jurisdiction to impose it. Such an erroneous sentence is voidable, making the person subject to resentencing only if the original sentence has been properly appealed or if the court follows the procedure set forth in R.C. 2929.191.1 See State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200, 2009-Ohio-2462, 909 N.E.2d 1254, ¶ 74-76 (Lanzinger, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).. The effect of R.C. 2929.191 is currently being questioned in case…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. BloomerOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State v. Singleton, 90042 (5-15-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API