State v. Camp, 2011 Ohio 3215

Appellant William D. Camp pleaded guilty July 12, 2005 to corrupting another with drugs and four counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor; total sentence: 12 years 4 months.
The sentencing entry (Nov. 22, 2005) incorrectly stated postrelease control could be up to five years.
On July 28, 2010 the trial court, without a new sentencing hearing, corrected the entry to impose a mandatory five-year postrelease control.
Appellant challenged the correction, and the State conceded Crim.R. 36 cannot fix a void imposition and a new sentencing hearing was required under R.C. 2929.191.
The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas’ correction was reversed and the matter remanded for a de novo sentencing hearing.
The decision follows State v. Singleton and related authority requiring de novo sentencing for pre-July 11, 2006 sentences misimposing postrelease control.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Crim.R. 36 was proper to correct the void postrelease-control imposition	Camp argues Crim.R. 36 cannot fix a void imposition	State concedes Crim.R. 36 cannot be used to correct void postrelease-control imposition	Voids correction improper; de novo hearing required
Whether Camp was entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing under R.C. 2929.191	Camp asserts he is entitled to de novo sentencing before adding postrelease control	State agrees de novo sentencing is required for pre-2006 sentences misimposed	De novo sentencing required; remand for new hearing
Whether the remedy was a proper remand to conduct a new sentencing hearing	Remand appropriate to conduct proper de novo sentencing	Remand aligns with statutory requirements	Remand for de novo sentencing

State v. Crawley, 2010-Ohio-5098 (Ohio, 8th Dist.) (cited for Crim.R.36 and correction procedures in similar postrelease-control contexts)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009) (pre-2006 sentences require de novo sentencing when postrelease control was misimposed)