State v. Billiter, 134 Ohio St. 3d 103

Billiter pled guilty in 1998 to aggravated burglary and domestic violence, receiving a sentence including postrelease control up to three years that violated the five-year statutorily mandated term.
He was released in 2001 and began postrelease supervision, violating its terms in 2004 by escaping and pleading guilty to the offense of escape.
The trial court later sentenced him to three years of community control in 2004, then revoked probation and imposed six years’ imprisonment for the escape in August 2004.
Billiter did not appeal any part of his 1998, 2001–2004, or 2004 sentences, nor did he challenge the postrelease-control sentence at the time.
In 2008 he moved to vacate his 2004 guilty plea on the theory that the 1998 postrelease-control order was void; the Fifth District rejected this and held res judicata applied; a certified conflict led to this court’s review.
The court held that when a trial court improperly imposes postrelease control and the defendant subsequently pleads guilty to violation of that control, res judicata does not bar collaterally challenging the conviction as void.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars collateral attack on a plea based on a postrelease-control error.	Billiter—res judicata cannot bar relief for a void sentence under Fischer.	State—res judicata applies because prior challenges were rejected.	No; res judicata does not bar the collateral attack.
Whether Fischer governs collateral challenges to an escape conviction arising from an improper postrelease-control sentence.	Billiter reliant on Fischer to show void sentence and innocence.	State contends Fischer limited to direct appeal issues.	Fischer applies; void postrelease-control sentence allows collateral attack.
What is the effect of a void postrelease-control sentence on the escape conviction itself?	Billiter contends the escape conviction rests on a void sentence and is invalid.	State argues conviction based on void sentence remains subject to res judicata.	Escape conviction is voidable/vacatable; however, for this case, the conviction is tied to the void sentence and may be challenged.

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (void sentences may be reviewed; res judicata does not bar collateral attacks on void postrelease-control sentences)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (void postrelease-control sentences entitle defendant to relief; later refined by Fischer)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004-Ohio-6085) (proper imposition of postrelease control; not directly addressing collateral attacks on void sentences)
State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008-Ohio-1197) (postrelease-control issues; relevance to collateral challenges)
State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 (2009-Ohio-1577) (sentencing issues related to postrelease control; separate from direct challenges to conviction)