[Cite as State v. Norris, 2012-Ohio-485.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
-vs- :
: CASE NO. CT11-0001
DERRICK NORRIS :
: OPINION
Defendant-Appellant :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. CR2003-0288A
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 3, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
D. MICHAEL HADDOX ROBERT D. ESSEX
Muskingum Cty. Prosecuting Atty. 1654 East Broad Street
27 North Fifth Street Suite 302
Suite 201 Columbus, Ohio 43203
Zanesville, Ohio 43701
Muskingum County, Case No. CT11-0001 2
Delaney, J.,
{¶1} On September 17, 2004, Appellant Derrick Norris pled guilty to one
count of murder with a firearm specification, one count of aggravated robbery,
and one count of tampering with evidence. The trial court sentenced Appellant to
an aggregate term of 33 years to life in prison. On March 5, 2010, Appellant filed
a motion for sentencing, requesting vacation of this sentence and a de novo
sentencing hearing because the trial court had failed to properly inform him of
postrelease control. The trial court denied the motion. On December 8, 2010,
this Court overruled the trial court and remanded the case to the trial court for the
purpose of conducting a de novo sentencing because Appellant had not been
advised of his postrelease control obligation.
{¶2} On December 20, 2010, the trial court conducted a resentencing
hearing. Just prior to the resentencing, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw his
guilty plea. Counsel for Appellant attempted to address the trial court regarding
the motion, however, the trial court indicated that the motion to withdraw would
not be heard and proceeded to limit the hearing to the imposition of postrelease
control. The trial court proceeded to advise Appellant of his postrelease control
obligations which were memorialized by the entry being appealed in this case.
Subsequent to the sentencing hearing, the trial court issued a briefing schedule
on the motion to withdraw Appellant’s guilty plea.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT11-0001 3
{¶3} Counsel for Appellant has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, rehearing den.
(1967), 388 U.S. 924, indicating that the within appeal was wholly frivolous and
setting forth a proposed assignment of error. Appellant did not file a pro se brief
alleging any additional assignments of error.
{¶4} Counsel for Appellant has raised the following potential assignment
of error:
I.
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RE-IMPOSING A PERIOD OF POST RELEASE
CONTROL AND FAILED TO CONDUCT A PROPER RE-SENTENCING
HEARING.”
{¶5} Appellant’s case was remanded to the trial court for the sole reason
to impose postrelease control. All other aspects of Appellant’s conviction and
sentence were affirmed. The trial court correctly imposed a five year mandatory
period of postrelease control for Appellant’s conviction of a felony of the first
degree pursuant to R.C. 2967.28.
{¶6} As the Supreme Court recently reiterated in Fischer, “[A] complete
de novo resentencing is not required when a defendant prevails only as to the
post release-control aspect of a particular sentence. In this situation, the post
release-control component of the sentence is fully capable of being separated
from the rest of the sentence as an independent component, and the limited
Muskingum County, Case No. CT11-0001 4
resentencing must cover only the post release control. It is only the post release-
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.” State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio
St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332 (citations omitted).
{¶7} Because the trial court imposed the correct period of postrelease
control, we find the hearing was properly conducted. Appellant’s potential
assignment of error is overruled.
{¶8} Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the
Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Delaney, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Edwards, J. concur
____________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
____________________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
____________________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : CASE NO. CT11-0001
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
DERRICK NORRIS :
:
Defendant-Appellant :
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Muskingum County, Ohio is affirmed.
Costs taxed to appellant.
______________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
______________________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
______________________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS