State v. Bates, 2020 Ohio 267

In 2008 Bates was convicted of kidnapping (with sexual motivation), four counts of rape (first-degree felonies), and two counts of robbery (third-degree felonies); aggregate prison term of nine years was imposed.
The trial court’s 2008 journal entry stated only “post release control is part of this prison sentence for 5 years” and omitted required details (mandatory/discretionary status, correct durations, APA administration, and violation consequences).
In 2018 the prosecutor discovered the defective 2008 entry; the court held a limited resentencing/classification hearing, advised Bates of mandatory PRC (five years for the first‑degree/sex offenses, three years for robberies), and journalized corrected PRC advisals.
Bates objected, arguing the state should have appealed the 2008 omission and the court could not fix the sentence after he had nearly served it.
The appellate court remanded for technical corrections to the 2018 entry and then considered Bates’s sole assignment of error: whether the court erred by imposing PRC in 2018 after the original omission.

Issue	State's Argument	Bates's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing/correcting postrelease control in 2018 after a defective 2008 sentencing entry when Bates had nearly completed his prison term	The PRC portion of the 2008 sentence was void and may be corrected at any time before the defendant completes the sentence; Grimes requires the journal entry to include mandatory/discretionary status, duration, and APA/violation language	The omission made the sentence merely voidable, not void; the state had to appeal within 30 days of the 2008 entry; after that window (and with most time served) the sentence cannot be altered	Affirmed: the court found the 2008 PRC entry defective (thus PRC portion void) and held correction in 2018 was permitted because Bates had not yet completed his entire sentence

State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568 (Ohio 2008) (holding that when PRC is required but not properly included the sentence is void and the state is entitled to resentencing unless the defendant completed the sentence)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio 2010) (clarifying that only the PRC portion is void, not the entire sentence)
State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19, 2017-Ohio-2927, 85 N.E.3d 700 (Ohio 2017) (specifying the information a sentencing entry must include to validly impose PRC)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961 (Ohio 2007) (holding courts may not correct PRC after defendant completes sentence)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-6085, 817 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio 2004) (PRC notice at sentencing is mandatory; sentencing contrary to law if omitted)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526, 2013-Ohio-5014, 1 N.E.3d 382 (Ohio 2013) (reiterating that only the PRC portion is void when improperly imposed)