[Cite as State v. Lumpkin, 2013-Ohio-810.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CLARK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: Appellate Case No. 2011-CA-80
Plaintiff-Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 11-CR-244
v. :
:
NATHANIEL LUMPKIN : (Criminal Appeal from
: (Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 8th day of March, 2013.
...........
LISA M. FANNIN, Atty. Reg. #0082337, Clark County Prosecutor’s Office, 50 East
Columbia Street, 4th Floor, Post Office Box 1608, Springfield, Ohio 45501
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
ADAM J. ARNOLD, Atty. Reg. #0088791, 208 Babington Court, Beavercreek, Ohio 45440
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
HALL, J.
{¶ 1} Nathaniel Lumpkin appeals from his conviction and sentence on one count of
breaking and entering.
{¶ 2} In his sole assignment of error, Lumpkin contends the trial court erred in
2
failing to notify him about post-release control at sentencing. This court raised the foregoing
issue in a December 3, 2012 decision and entry when we were reviewing the case after the
filing of a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493
(1967). In that ruling, we explained:
Despite the trial court’s statement in the judgment entry that it notified
Lumpkin about post-release control, such notification does not appear in the
sentencing transcript or elsewhere in the record. Therefore, a non-frivolous
issue exists as to whether the trial court erred in failing to notify Lumpkin
about post-release control at sentencing. See, e.g., State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio
St.3d 499, 504, 2012-Ohio-1111, 967 N.E.2d 718, ¶18 (recognizing that “a trial
court must provide statutorily compliant notification to a defendant regarding
postrelease control at the time of sentencing, including notifying the defendant
of the details of the postrelease control and the consequences of violating
postrelease control”).
{¶ 3} We subsequently appointed new counsel for Lumpkin, who now raises as a
sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in including post-release control in the
judgment entry but not mentioning it at sentencing. For its part, the State concedes that the
trial court’s failure to address post-release control at sentencing constitutes reversible error.
See, e.g., State v. Blessing, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2011 CA 56, 2013-Ohio-392, ¶41. Accordingly,
Lumpkin’s sole assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 4} The portion of the trial court’s judgment entry imposing post-release control is
reversed, and the cause is remanded for proper imposition of post-release control. In all other
3
respects, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
.............
DONOVAN and FROELICH, JJ., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Lisa M. Fannin
Adam J. Arnold
Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter