State ex rel. Davis v. Turner (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 1771

Randy H. Davis was convicted of murder (15 years to life) in 2001; the sentencing entry erroneously included a postrelease-control (PRC) sanction.
In March 2018 the trial court vacated the PRC provision (murder is a special felony not subject to PRC) but did not journalize a new corrected sentencing entry; a later motion for a corrected entry was denied.
In April 2020 Davis filed a habeas-corpus complaint seeking relief based on his contention that the original judgment is partially void because of the erroneous PRC language.
The Third District dismissed the habeas petition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and assessed court costs (~$136.95); Davis objected to the warden’s attempt to collect those costs, invoking R.C. 2329.66(A)(3) (personal-funds exemption).
The court of appeals denied Davis’s motion to vacate the assessed costs; Davis appealed both the habeas dismissal and the denial of the costs motion to the Ohio Supreme Court (consolidated).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Davis)	Defendant's Argument (Turner)	Held
Whether the erroneous inclusion of PRC in the sentencing entry rendered Davis’s judgment "void" entitling him to habeas relief	The original judgment is partially void because it includes unlawful PRC; trial court’s failure to issue a corrected single judgment violates the one-document rule	The sentencing error (improper PRC) is nonjurisdictional and renders the sentence voidable, not void; habeas is inappropriate because Davis is not entitled to immediate release and has adequate remedies	Denied: sentencing error is voidable, not void; habeas corpus is not available, and sentencing errors are not cognizable in habeas
Whether Davis may avoid liability for assessed court costs by claiming his prison account is exempt under R.C. 2329.66(A)(3)	Funds in his prison account are below the exemption threshold and thus exempt from execution to satisfy the judgment for costs	R.C. 2329.66(A) governs exemptions at execution/enforcement stage, not liability; statute does not provide a basis to vacate an assessed costs judgment	Denied: exemption affects execution/garnishment procedures, not the underlying assessment of costs; Davis must use administrative and judicial procedures to contest any improper garnishment

State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480 (2020) (sentencing errors in postrelease control render a sentence voidable, not void)
State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (one-document rule for final, appealable judgment of conviction)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (murder is a special felony; parole, not PRC, applies upon release)
Leyman v. Bradshaw, 146 Ohio St.3d 522 (2016) (habeas is generally available only when the petitioner's maximum sentence has expired)
Heddleston v. Mack, 84 Ohio St.3d 213 (1998) (same principle regarding habeas availability)
State ex rel. Sneed v. Anderson, 114 Ohio St.3d 11 (2007) (sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and are not cognizable in habeas)
State ex rel. Haynie v. Rudduck, 160 Ohio St.3d 99 (2020) (availability of adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law bars habeas relief)