[Cite as State v. Prim, 2014-Ohio-931.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 100138
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
JESSE PRIM
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-97-357925
BEFORE: Celebrezze, P.J., Keough, J., and Blackmon, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 13, 2014
FOR APPELLANT
Jesse Prim, pro se
Inmate No. 357-237
Grafton Correctional Institution
2500 S. Avon Belden Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: T. Allan Regas
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jesse Prim, appeals the judgment of the common pleas
court denying his motion to correct his sentence. After a careful review of the record and
relevant case law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. Procedural History
{¶2} Appellant was indicted in connection with the shooting death of victim Terry
Smith on December 5, 1997. Appellant’s case proceeded to a jury trial, after which he
was found guilty of aggravated murder, with a three-year firearm specification, in
violation of R.C. 2903.01; attempted murder, with a three-year firearm specification, in
violation of R.C. 2903.02; unlawful possession of a dangerous ordnance, with a firearm
specification, in violation of R.C. 2923.17; and having a weapon while under disability in
violation of R.C. 2923.13. On April 27, 1998, appellant was sentenced to serve a life
term of imprisonment.
{¶3} In his direct appeal, appellant claimed that the trial court failed to provide an
instruction on voluntary manslaughter; abused its discretion by referring appellant to the
court psychiatric clinic for an evaluation; and allowed the introduction of statements that
appellant had made to police that were not voluntary. He also claimed he received
ineffective assistance of counsel. This court found that appellant’s assignments of error
were without merit and affirmed his convictions and sentence. State v. Prim, 134 Ohio
App.3d 142, 730 N.E.2d 455 (8th Dist.1999).
{¶4} Following this court’s affirmance, appellant filed a motion for resentencing in
August 2009. The trial court denied the motion and appellant appealed. State v. Prim,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93955, 2010-Ohio-1580. In his appeal, appellant argued that
“all his sentences [were] void because the trial court failed to inform him of postrelease
control.” This court agreed with respect to appellant’s charges for unlawful possession
of a dangerous ordnance and having a weapon while under disability. Id. at ¶ 8.
Accordingly, this court remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing.
{¶5} On remand, the trial court determined that appellant had already completed
his sentence for the charges of unlawful possession and having a weapon while under
disability. Thus, the trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to resentence
appellant on those charges and that it could not impose postrelease control.
{¶6} In April 2013, appellant filed a motion to correct his sentence. In his
motion, appellant alleged that the trial court failed to credit the two years he served for
having a weapon while under disability and possession of a dangerous ordnance toward
his murder sentence, in accordance with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i). Appellant further
alleged that, pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(ii), he was entitled to a hearing on this
matter. In June 2013, appellant’s motion to correct his sentence was denied.
{¶7} Appellant now brings this timely appeal, raising one assignment of error for
review.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court committed
reversible error by denying him a hearing on his motion to correct his sentence.
{¶9} Within this assignment of error, appellant claims that because the trial court
erred in failing to impose postrelease control, his sentences for having a weapon while
under disability and possession of a dangerous ordnance were “void” in their entirety.
Thus, appellant contends that because the sentences were void, and because they were
ordered to run prior to and consecutive to his sentence for aggravated murder, he should
have received credit for time served on those sentences. Appellant’s contention is
without merit.
{¶10} Where a trial court fails to properly impose postrelease control, only the
postrelease control sanction is void; the remainder of the sentence remains intact. See
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332. Thus, appellant
was not entitled to any “jail-time” credit, and the trial court had no obligation to hold a
hearing pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(g)(i)-(ii). Appellant’s request for relief was
properly denied.
{¶11} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common
pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., CONCUR