State v. Lumpkin

2013 Ohio 810

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 8, 2013
• Docket: 2011-CA-80
• Status: Published

Opinion

[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