State v. Antol, 2013 Ohio 5640

Defendant-appellant Paul Antol Jr. appeals a six-month driver’s license suspension imposed after a plea to OVI.
Antol was arrested on April 9, 2012 for OVI on I-680, his third OVI offense since 1996.
Antol initially refused a urine test after being advised of consequences, leading to ALS and license suspension under R.C. 4511.191(B)(1)(a).
Antol pleaded not guilty at first, then withdrew jury demand and entered a no contest plea to OVI on October 22, 2012.
Following sentencing, the trial court issued a six-month license suspension to commence on the date of sentencing; the registrar later terminated the ALS and the State dismissed related charges.
Antol argued the trial court’s sentencing began the suspension before credit for pretrial ALS could be applied, rendering the judgment void.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is ripe to challenge ALS credit timing	Antol argues registrar credit must be applied against judicial suspension.	Antol contends six-month suspension precludes proper ALS credit.	Not ripe; issues depend on registrar action.
Whether the registrar must credit pretrial ALS against judicial suspension	Antol relies on R.C. 4511.191(B)(2) and 4511.196(C) rights.	State argues registry credit is ministerial and not contingent on trial court action.	Registrar credit is required but not reviewable until registrar acts; appeal dismissed.

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (overruled Bezak; post-release control analogy does not apply here)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007) (overruled by Fischer; void sentences for failure to impose post-release control)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (post-release control line of cases cited by Antol as analogy)
State v. Bezak, overruled by Fischer, — (—) (Bezak-line rationale superseded; focus on registry credit)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009) (remedial procedure for improper sentences (context))