State v. Brink

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Brink, 2026-Ohio-1934.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COLUMBIANA COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER M. BRINK,

Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case Nos. 25 CO 0036; 25 CO 0037; 25 CO 0038; 25 CO 0039

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Columbiana County, Ohio Case Nos. 2023 CR 610; 2024 CR 60; 2024 CR 148; 2024 CR 678

BEFORE: Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.

JUDGMENT: Affirmed.

Atty. Vito J. Abruzzino, Columbiana County Prosecutor, and Atty. Steven V. Yacovone, Assistant Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Atty. R. Aaron Miller, Belmont County Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant

Dated: May 20, 2026 –2–

WAITE, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant Christopher M. Brink pleaded guilty in four separate cases in the

Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas to four charges of aggravated possession

of drugs. He argues on appeal that the trial court failed to fully explain the meaning and

significance of postrelease control, thereby invalidating his guilty pleas. The record

reflects that the court did follow the proper procedure for notifying Appellant about

postrelease control pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2) and 2967.28. Appellant's assignment

of error has no merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} In each of the four cases that have been consolidated in this appeal,

Appellant was charged in the Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas with

aggravated possession of drugs pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(A). On August 28, 2025, the

court held a change of plea hearing in which Appellant agreed to plead guilty in each of

the four cases. In Case Nos. 23 CR 610 and 24 CR 678 he agreed to plead guilty to third

degree felonies. In Case Nos. 24 CR 148 and 24 CR 60 he agreed to plead guilty to fifth

degree felonies. The court informed Appellant that he could be subject to up to two years

of postrelease control, to be supervised by the Adult Parole Authority (“APA”) that could

include a new prison term of up to one-half the prison term originally imposed. (8/28/25

Tr., p. 23.)

{¶3} The sentencing hearing took place on October 8, 2025. The court notified

Appellant at the hearing that he could be subject to up to two years of postrelease control

pursuant to R.C. 2967.28, supervised by the APA, and that a violation could include a

new prison term of up to one-half the prison term originally imposed. (10/8/25 Tr., p. 18.)

Case Nos. 25 CO 0036; 25 CO 0037; 25 CO 0038; 25 CO 0039 –3–

{¶4} The sentencing judgment entries in each of four cases were filed on October

16, 2025. Each entry stated that Appellant was notified of postrelease control as required

by R.C. 2929.19, that he would be subject to up to two years of postrelease control

administered by the APA as set forth in R.C. 2967.68, that a violation would be subject to

the terms of the statute, and that a new prison term could be imposed of up to one-half of

his original sentence. Timely appeals were filed on October 30, 2025.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO PROPERLY ADVISE THE

APPELLANT FULLY OF POST-RELEASE CONTROL.

{¶5} Appellant contends a trial court judge must inform a defendant about

postrelease control prior to accepting a guilty plea, and that the notice about postrelease

control must be included in the sentencing entry. Appellant cites as authority R.C.

2929.19(B)(2)(c)-(e) and 2967.28. Appellant claims that the failure to properly notify him

about postrelease control renders his plea and conviction void. He argues the trial judge

was required to notify him that a violation of parole would or could result in a sanction of

up to nine months of imprisonment for each violation, but no longer than one-half the

sentence imposed by the trial court. He also argues that the court failed to tell him that if

he commits a new felony while on postrelease control, he risked having additional time

added to his sentence: one-year, or the amount remaining on his postrelease control,

whichever would be greater. Appellant concludes that the effect of these alleged errors

is to entitle him to a new sentencing hearing.

Case Nos. 25 CO 0036; 25 CO 0037; 25 CO 0038; 25 CO 0039 –4–

{¶6} As a preliminary matter, Appellant is incorrect that his alleged error, if

sustained on appeal, means his plea and conviction are void. Any error in imposing

postrelease control renders a judgment voidable rather than void, only allowing the error

to be set aside upon a successful challenge in a direct appeal. State v. Harper, 2020-

Ohio-2913, ¶ 4. Appellant’s citations asserting that his judgment is void due to a

postrelease control notification error have been overruled, and are no longer good law.

{¶7} Appellant did not object to the advisements given by the court regarding

postrelease control. An error regarding postrelease control not objected to during the trial

court proceedings forfeits all error on appeal except for plain error. State v. Frazier, 2024-

Ohio-518, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.); State v. Burgos, 2022-Ohio-3919, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.).

{¶8} A trial court is only required to notify a defendant at sentencing of three

aspects of postrelease control: “The trial court must advise the offender at the sentencing

hearing of the term of supervision, whether postrelease control is discretionary or

mandatory, and the consequences of violating postrelease control.” State v. Bates, 2022-

Ohio-475, ¶ 11, citing State v. Grimes, 2017-Ohio-2927, ¶ 11. See R.C. 2929.19(B)(2).

In order to comply with the third aspect, a trial court must provide some notice that if the

offender violates postrelease control:

[T]he parole board may impose a prison term, as part of the

sentence, of up to one-half of the definite prison term originally imposed

upon the offender as the offender's stated prison term or up to one-half of

the minimum prison term originally imposed upon the offender as part of the

offender's stated non-life felony indefinite prison term.

Case Nos. 25 CO 0036; 25 CO 0037; 25 CO 0038; 25 CO 0039 –5–

R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f).

{¶9} The court must also include a postrelease control notice in the sentencing

entry. The judgment entry of sentencing must include the following:

(1) whether postrelease control is discretionary or mandatory, (2) the

duration of the postrelease-control period, and (3) a statement to the effect

that the [APA] will administer the postrelease control pursuant to R.C.

2967.28 and that any violation by the offender of the conditions of

postrelease control will subject the offender to the consequences set forth

in that statute.

Bates at ¶ 12.

{¶10} Grimes held that the following advisement in the sentencing entry was

sufficient to satisfy the notification requirements of R.C. 2967.28:

The Court further notified the Defendant that “Post Release Control”

is mandatory in this case for three (03) years as well as the consequences

for violating conditions of post release control imposed by Parole Board

under Revised Code § 2967.28. The Defendant is ordered to serve as part

of this sentence any term for violation of that post release control.

(Emphasis deleted.)

Grimes at ¶ 2. A reference to R.C. 2967.28 in the sentencing entry allows the defendant

to determine any further requirements and consequences of postrelease control. Id. at

¶ 19.

Case Nos. 25 CO 0036; 25 CO 0037; 25 CO 0038; 25 CO 0039 –6–

{¶11} The trial court in the cases now under appeal clearly satisfied the notice

requirements of R.C. 2967.28. The change of plea hearing included notification that

Appellant was subject to two years of postrelease control, that it was not mandatory, and

that pursuant to R.C. 2967.28, it would be supervised by the APA and could include a

new prison term of up to one-half the prison term originally imposed which would be

served consecutively.

{¶12} Each of the four sentencing entries contained the following notice:

The Defendant was notified at the hearing of Post Release Control

(PRC) pursuant to R.C. 2929.19. Upon being released from prison the

Defendant was notified he/she may be supervised by the Parole Board for

up to Two (2) years on PRC, which is optional. If a period of PRC is

imposed, the Adult Parole Authority will administer PRC pursuant to R.C.

2967.28 and any violations of the conditions of PRC will subject the

Defendant to the consequences set forth in that statute. If a period of

supervision is imposed following the Defendant's release from prison and

the Defendant violates the supervision or a condition of PRC, the parole

board may impose a prison term, as part of the sentence, of up to one-half

of the stated prison term originally imposed upon the Defendant. If the

Defendant is convicted of a new felony offense committed while on PRC,

any prison term imposed for the violation shall be served consecutively to

any prison term imposed for the new felony.

Case Nos. 25 CO 0036; 25 CO 0037; 25 CO 0038; 25 CO 0039 –7–

{¶13} This advisement is much more thorough than the one in Grimes. It not only

contains the three requirements of the advisement, but provides more information to

Appellant: the PRC, administered by the APA, was discretionary; it was for two years;

violations would be subject to the consequences set forth in R.C. 2967.28, particularly the

consequences that if Appellant violated PRC, the APA could impose a prison term as part

of the sentence of up to one-half of the stated prison term originally imposed; and that if

Appellant is convicted of a new felony while on PRC, any prison term imposed for the

violation would be served consecutively to any prison term imposed for the new felony.

{¶14} The additional advisements Appellant now claims he was not given are not

required by the case law governing PRC, and the trial court, in fact, did provide all required

advisements and also additional advisements (such as, that a postrelease control

violation prison term would be served consecutively to the prison term for a new felony).

The trial court more than satisfied all of the requirements of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2) and

2967.28. Appellant’s assignment of error is without merit and is overruled.

Conclusion

{¶15} Appellant contends on appeal that the trial court failed to fully explain the

meaning and significance of postrelease control, thereby invalidating his guilty pleas. He

claims that the court failed to notify him that a violation of parole would or could result in

a sanction of up to nine months of imprisonment for each violation, but no longer than

one-half the sentence imposed by the trial court. He further asserts that the court failed

to tell him that if he commits a new felony while on postrelease control, he risked having

additional time added to his sentence: one-year or the amount remaining on his

postrelease control, whichever would be greater. However, these notifications are not

Case Nos. 25 CO 0036; 25 CO 0037; 25 CO 0038; 25 CO 0039 –8–

required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2) and 2967.28. The record reveals that the court more than

followed the proper procedure for notifying Appellant about postrelease control at the

sentencing hearing and in the sentencing entry. Appellant's assignment of error has no

merit, and the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Robb, J. concurs.

Hanni, J. concurs.

Case Nos. 25 CO 0036; 25 CO 0037; 25 CO 0038; 25 CO 0039 [Cite as State v. Brink, 2026-Ohio-1934.]

For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, Appellant’s assignment of

error is overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgments of

the Court of Common Pleas of Columbiana County, Ohio, are affirmed. Costs waived.

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in

this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a

certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.