Youngstown Daily Legal News

Appeals court upholds 4-year prison sentence for thief

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 22, 2014

A convicted robber lost his appeal this week when the 10th District Court of Appeals ruled that his trial court properly imposed post-release control sanctions and dismissed his motion to vacate his sentence.

Mohamed Jalloh was indicted on numerous counts, including aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, robbery and kidnapping in May 2006.

He eventually entered a negotiated plea deal and pleaded guilty to first-degree aggravated robbery while the remaining charges were dropped.

The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas accepted Jalloh’s plea and sentenced him to four years in prison.

He did not appeal his conviction at that time.

In December 2012, he filed a motion to vacate his sentence on the grounds that the trial court “never advised (him) of the consequences for violating post-release control,” according to the facts of the case.

He further claimed the common pleas court neglected to advise him of his “limited right to appeal a maximum sentence or procedural issues regarding his plea.”

The trial court denied the motion, stating that “defendant was not entitled to the relief he seeks,” and Jalloh appealed to the 10th District.

“In his sole assignment of error, defendant asserts that his sentence is void because the ‘trial court failed to advise appellant of the consequences of violating post-release control that he could be returned back to prison for up to one-half of this sentence,’” wrote Judge John Connor, citing Jalloh’s brief.

Jalloh conceded that the trial court notified him of a five-year period of post-release control, but argued that it did not notify him of the consequences of that sanction or of his right to appeal.

Upon review, however, the three-judge appellate panel found that the matter was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

They ruled that Jalloh could have raised his issue at trial and for his argument to survive the res judicata bar he would have to prove that the sentence was “void.”

The judges noted that a sentence is void when a trial judge does not impose post-release control in accordance with the statutorily mandated terms.

“Pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) and (e), the trial court had to notify defendant at the sentencing hearing that he would be on post-release control after his release from prison and the consequences for violations of post-release control. Post-release control sanctions are also to be included in the judgment entry journalized by the court,” Judge Connor stated.

The appellate panel held that a trial court meets those obligations when “its oral and written notifications, taken as a whole, properly informed the defendant of post-release control.”

After reviewing the record, the judges found that the trial court did properly advise Jalloh about his post-release control. His signed guilty plea form informed him that he would be placed under five years of mandatory post-release control following the completion of his prison sentence and warned him that violating the conditions of the sanction could result in more prison time.

The record also contained a sentencing disposition sheet in which the trial judge indicated that he notified Jalloh of his requirements both orally and in writing.

Nonetheless, Jalloh insisted that the trial court did not orally advise him of the full meaning of his sentence.

“Defendant, however, has failed to provide this court with a transcript of the sentencing hearing,” Judge Connor wrote.

Finding it was an appellant’s responsibility to provide the transcript, the judges ruled that they must presume regularity without it.

“Because defendant has not supported the alleged error with a transcript or any alternative form of the record permitted by App.R. 9, we presume regularity in the trial court proceedings, and thus presume that the trial court orally notified defendant of the consequences of violating his post-release control,” Judge Connor stated.

Presiding Judge Lisa Sadler and Judge Susan Brown joined Judge Connor in affirming the lower court’s ruling.

The case is cited State v. Jalloh, case No. 13AP-411.

[Back]