State v. Anderson, 2016 Ohio 1089

In 2007 Anderson was convicted by jury of multiple offenses arising from a mortgage-fraud scheme; trial court imposed concurrent prison terms and restitution.
The trial court issued two corrected sentencing entries (one dismissing a count and one reducing a count from 3rd- to 4th-degree felony with a reduced concurrent term); Anderson did not timely appeal those corrected entries.
Anderson repeatedly litigated post-release control issues in motions starting in 2013, claiming he was not properly advised of post-release control and that the court mischaracterized it as discretionary rather than mandatory.
At the November 6, 2008 sentencing the court orally advised Anderson of a 5-year period of mandatory post-release control and the consequences of violations; Anderson signed a written notice the same day.
Corrected sentencing entries expressly stated the defendant was notified he would receive 5 years of post-release control.
The trial court denied Anderson’s 2015 motion for resentencing; the Tenth District affirmed, holding the sentence was not void and the claims were barred by res judicata because the court previously rejected identical arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Anderson)	Held
Whether trial court failed to notify Anderson of post-release control for specific counts	State: Court properly notified Anderson at sentencing and in entries; notice covers longest applicable term	Anderson: Court failed to address post-release control as to counts 2,4,5,7,8,9,12,19,20 so sentencing is defective	Held: Notification was adequate (oral, written form, and entries); sentence not void; claim barred by res judicata
Whether post-release control was mandatory but mischaracterized as discretionary at sentencing	State: Court correctly informed Anderson that 5 years of post-release control was mandatory and consequences were explained	Anderson: Court misadvised that post-release control was discretionary rather than mandatory	Held: Court properly advised Anderson of mandatory 5-year post-release control; no void portion of sentence

Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (describing claim- and issue-preclusion principles)
Goodson v. McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 2 Ohio St.3d 193 (1982) (collateral estoppel requires identical issue actually litigated and essential to prior judgment)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (sentence void when court fails to properly impose post-release control)
State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008) (improper imposition of post-release control may render portion of sentence void)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009) (trial court must notify defendant of post-release control at sentencing and in the judgment entry)
State v. Jackson, 141 Ohio St.3d 171 (2014) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)
State v. Schleiger, 141 Ohio St.3d 67 (2014) (if post-release control improperly imposed on or after July 11, 2006, correction procedures of R.C. 2929.191 apply)
Brooks v. Kelly, 144 Ohio St.3d 322 (2015) (summarizing Ohio res judicata and collateral estoppel doctrines)