# State v. Ketterer

> Ohio Supreme Court · August 25, 2010 · 126 Ohio St. 3d 448

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9779623

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Ketterer, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 25, 2010
- **Citations:** 126 Ohio St. 3d 448; 935 N.E.2d 9; 2010 OH 3831
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stratton
- **Judges:** Lanzinger, Pfeifer, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Cupp, Stratton, Brown
- **Cited by:** 326 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9779623

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that trial court’s language in sentencing entry that “[t]he defendant is ordered to serve as part of this sentence any term of post-release control imposed by the Parole Board, and any prison term for violation of that post-release control” did not comply with mandate …
- finding that the procedures in R.C. 2929.191 control, and rejecting an opportunity to apply its holding in Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425 , 2006- Ohio-5082, 857 N.E.2d 78 , that a reasonable person in the position of the offender would have had sufficient notice that p…
- holding that res judicata generally bars a defendant from raising a claim in a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion that was or could have been raised on direct appeal
- holding that “[c]apital cases, in which an R.C. 2929.03(F) sentencing opinion is necessary, are clear exceptions to Baker’s ‘one document’ rule”

## Opinion text

Lundberg Stratton, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 82} The majority holds that the trial court failed to properly impose postrelease control and, therefore, that the case must be remanded so that *465 Ketterer may be given the proper terms of postrelease control pursuant to R.C. 2929.191. I dissent.
Robin N. Piper, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael A. Oster Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Randall L. Porter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Seth L. Gilbert and Steven L. Taylor, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.
{¶ 83} In Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425 , 2006-Ohio-5082 , 857 N.E.2d 78 , this court acknowledged that the journal entries erroneously referred to discretionary, instead of mandatory, postrelease control, but determined that a “reasonable person in the position of any of the petitioners would have sufficient notice that postrelease control could be imposed following the expiration of the person’s sentence.” Id. at ¶ 51. Moreover, we noted that the “preeminent purpose of R.C. 2967.28” is that “offenders subject to postrelease control know at sentencing that their liberty could continue to be restrained after serving their initial sentences.” Id. at ¶ 52.
{¶ 84} In this case, Ketterer was advised that he was subject to postrelease control, that the duration of that postrelease control would be five years, and that imposition of the postrelease control was mandatory. Therefore, while the trial court may have misspoken and at one point used the word “and” instead of the word “through,” the trial court did comply with the requirement to advise Ketterer that postrelease control was mandatory for five years. Therefore, the preeminent purpose of R.C. 2967.28 was complied with, and no error should be found that warrants reversal.
{¶ 85} In addition, Ketterer was sentenced to death for aggravated murder and to terms of imprisonment for burglary, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and grand theft of a motor vehicle. The term sentences were in addition to his sentence of death. Therefore, he will not ever be subject to postrelease control. Thus, any failure to properly impose postrelease control is also a factor in the harmless-error analysis. I respectfully dissent and would find that any failure to comply with the requirement to notify Ketterer of postrelease control constituted harmless error.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9779623. Public record. Not legal advice.