From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Crosky

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District
Oct 28, 2010
2010 Ohio 5264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)

Opinion

No. 10AP-399.

Rendered on October 28, 2010. REGULAR CALENDAR

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, C.P.C. No. 04CR-05-2970.

Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for appellee.

John R. Crosky, pro se.


DECISION


{¶ 1} John R. Crosky is appealing from the trial court's failure to re-sentence him after he filed a motion entitled "Motion to Impose Valid Sentence." He assigns a single error for our consideration:

The sentences are void for failure to comply with Statutory requirements regarding Postrelease Control.

{¶ 2} This is Crosky's third appeal. In his first appeal, we reduced the number of charges for which he was convicted and remanded the case for a new sentencing. Following his second sentencing, he appealed again and we affirmed the second set of sentences. At each of his sentencing hearings, he was advised that he was subject to five years of mandatory post-release control ("PRC").

{¶ 3} Nothing about the trial court proceedings makes Crosky's sentence void. Even if there were potential defects in the sentences, the defects should have been presented to the court in Crosky's previous appeals. They were not.

{¶ 4} The sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

BRYANT and FRENCH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Crosky

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District
Oct 28, 2010
2010 Ohio 5264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)
Case details for

State v. Crosky

Case Details

Full title:State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John R. Crosky, Defendant-Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

Date published: Oct 28, 2010

Citations

2010 Ohio 5264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)

Citing Cases

Crosky v. Sheets

He thereafter filed an appeal, asserting that his sentences were void "for failure to comply with Statutory…