State v. Arszman, 2017 Ohio 7581

In 2013 Toby Arszman pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition, was sentenced to 17 months, and originally classified as a Tier II sex offender.
This court earlier concluded the Tier II classification was improper and remanded for the trial court to classify Arszman as a Tier I offender; the trial court did not journalize that remand order.
After release from prison, Arszman filed a motion arguing the court lacked authority to classify or notify him of Tier I registration requirements because it failed to journalize the classification before his release.
The trial court overruled Arszman’s motion; Arszman appealed.
The appellate court noted there is no journalized Tier I classification or registration order in place and thus nothing to vacate, but remanded for the trial court to determine whether it has authority to notify and impose Tier I registration after Arszman’s release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court may notify and impose Tier I sex-offender registration after the offender has been released from prison	State: The court is bound by the appellate remand and may proceed to classify and impose registration	Arszman: Once released, the court lacks authority to add punitive registration requirements; notification must occur before release	The court held there is no journalized classification to vacate; remanded to the trial court to determine whether it may notify/impose Tier I registration post-release

State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 952 N.E.2d 1108 (2011) (held R.C. Chapter 2950 is punitive after enactment of S.B. 10)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526, 1 N.E.3d 382 (2013) (trial court lacks authority to resentence to add postrelease control after defendant has served the term)
State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200, 909 N.E.2d 1254 (2009) (corrections to sentences void for failure to impose postrelease control must occur before release)