State v. Bates (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 475

Background

In 2008 Robert Bates was sentenced to nine years for kidnapping, rape, and robbery; the journal entry mentioned a 5‑year postrelease‑control term but omitted required Grimes advisements (mandatory nature and consequences of violation).
Bates appealed his convictions in 2009; neither party challenged the postrelease‑control language on direct appeal. The convictions were affirmed.
In October 2018, during a sexual‑offender classification hearing, the prosecutor raised the 2008 omission; the trial court orally advised Bates and then journalized a new 2018 entry adding the missing postrelease‑control language.
Bates appealed the 2018 correction; the Eighth District affirmed based on pre‑Harper void‑sentence precedent that allowed correction prior to release. This court granted discretionary review.
After this Court decided Harper and Hudson (holding postrelease‑control errors are voidable, not void), the Court held that a collateral attack on postrelease‑control must be raised on direct appeal and is barred by res judicata; because the state failed to appeal in 2009, the 2018 entry imposing postrelease control was vacated as to that portion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State or Bates)	Defendant's Argument (other side)	Held
Whether a collateral attack on a trial court's imposition of postrelease control may be raised after direct appeal or is barred by res judicata	Bates: The 2008 imposition was defective and the court could not correct it in 2018; collateral attack should be allowed to prevent APA supervision	State: Errors must be raised at the earliest opportunity; defendant bears burden to appeal	Court: Error in imposing postrelease control is voidable (Harper/Hudson); collateral attacks must be made on direct appeal or are barred by res judicata
Who bore the burden to appeal the deficient 2008 notice (state or defendant)	Bates: The omission benefited him (no postrelease restraint), so the state should have appealed	State/AG: The defendant is the aggrieved party and should have appealed to correct sentence	Court: The omission benefitted Bates and injuriously affected the state’s interest; the state was the aggrieved party here and should have appealed; because it did not, res judicata bars correction
Whether the 2018 entry correcting the 2008 omission was valid/correctable	State: Trial court could correct the sentencing entry (R.C. 2929.191 or nunc pro tunc) before release to add required advisements	Bates: The 2008 sentence was voidable and could not be retroactively fixed without direct appeal; 2018 correction was improper	Court: Under Harper/Hudson, the 2018 correction is of no effect as a collateral remedy because res judicata bars such corrections when the state had a full and fair chance to appeal in 2009
Whether the 2008 defect precludes the APA from supervising Bates after release	Bates: Because postrelease control was never validly imposed, the APA lacks authority to supervise him	State: Statutes and parole‑board notice may preserve APA authority despite entry defects	Court: Did not decide on the merits; remanded/vacated 2018 entry as to postrelease control but declined to decide APA authority because record/facts (e.g., parole‑board notice, intervening 2019 convictions) and arguments were inadequate

Key Cases Cited

State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 159 N.E.3d 248 (Ohio 2020) (postrelease‑control errors render sentencing voidable, not void; claims must be raised on direct appeal)
State v. Hudson, 161 Ohio St.3d 166, 161 N.E.3d 608 (Ohio 2020) (reiterates Harper: postrelease‑control defects are voidable and subject to res judicata)
State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19, 85 N.E.3d 700 (Ohio 2017) (to validly impose postrelease control the judgment must state whether control is mandatory/discretionary, duration, and that APA will administer it)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 817 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio 2004) (trial court has statutory duty to notify offender at sentencing hearing of postrelease control)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 967 N.E.2d 718 (Ohio 2012) (Crim.R. 36/nunc pro tunc may add postrelease‑control notice to the entry only if the oral advisement was properly given at sentencing)
State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 884 N.E.2d 568 (Ohio 2008) (earlier precedent treating defective postrelease‑control impositions as void and correctable prior to release)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 920 N.E.2d 958 (Ohio 2009) (interpreting R.C. 2929.191 correction procedure for defective postrelease‑control notices)