Background
Seth Walter Hinton was charged after an investigation into the overdose death of a 19-year-old found that Hinton had sold counterfeit Percocet pills containing fentanyl. He pleaded guilty to corrupting another with drugs, aggravated trafficking, possession of a fentanyl-related compound, and aggravated possession of drugs.
The Ashland County Court of Common Pleas imposed an aggregate indefinite prison term of nine and one-half to 13 years. Its sentencing entry stated that Hinton was subject to mandatory post-release control for at least 18 months and up to three years. On appeal, Hinton argued that the court failed to state the duration of post-release control orally at sentencing.
The Court’s Holding
A divided Fifth District affirmed. The majority held that the trial court adequately advised Hinton that post-release control was mandatory, would be supervised by the Adult Parole Authority, carried consequences for violations, and would last “up to three years in this case.” The written sentencing entry also included the mandatory range of 18 months to three years and the consequences of violations.
The majority concluded that the advisements satisfied the governing requirements and that Hinton’s sentence was not contrary to law. Presiding Judge Hoffman dissented, reasoning that the trial court committed plain error because it did not orally tell Hinton that the mandatory post-release-control term had a minimum duration of 18 months.
Key Takeaways
- The majority treated the oral statement that mandatory post-release control could last up to three years as an adequate description of its duration.
- The sentencing entry separately stated the complete statutory range of at least 18 months and up to three years.
- The dissent would have remanded because the court did not orally advise Hinton of the 18-month statutory minimum.
Why It Matters
The decision highlights a divided view over how precisely Ohio trial courts must state a mandatory post-release-control range during the sentencing hearing. Under the majority’s approach, stating the mandatory nature and maximum duration may suffice when the complete range appears in the sentencing entry; the dissent would require oral notice of both the minimum and maximum terms.