State v. Braddy, 2012 Ohio 4720

Braddy was convicted July 31, 2003 by a jury of multiple counts of rape, gross sexual imposition, and one count of endangering children, receiving a 20 years-to-life aggregate sentence.
After a House Bill 180 hearing Braddy was classified as a sexual predator.
Braddy appealed his convictions, with the appellate court affirming in 2004 (State v. Braddy, 2004-Ohio-3128).
On October 14, 2011 Braddy filed a pro se motion for a de novo sentencing hearing alleging improper postrelease-control imposition and a non-final sentence.
November 28, 2011 the trial court held a limited de novo hearing on the proper imposition of postrelease control, determining Braddy’s original sentence was a final appealable order and then properly imposing postrelease control.
The appellate court ultimately held that Bezak entitles a new sentencing hearing, but Fischer limits resentencing to the postrelease-control issue, so the court’s ruling was affirmed and the assignment of error overruled.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Braddy was entitled to a resentencing hearing beyond postrelease-control imposition.	Braddy asks to overturn Fischer and apply Bezak for a full resentencing.	State argues Fischer controls, limiting resentencing to postrelease-control issues.	Assignment of Error overruled; Fischer controls.

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (postrelease-control resentencing limited to proper imposition)
State v. Gregley, 2012-Ohio-3450 (8th Dist. 2012) (limited scope of resentencing after improper postrelease-control imposition)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2007) (Bezak standard for new sentencing when postrelease control is involved)
State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (Ohio 2012) (affirms Fischer limitation on resentencing)
State v. Griffin, 2004-Ohio-4344 (8th Dist. 2004) (cited for postrelease-control advisory requirements)