State v. Clark, 2019 Ohio 3196

Timothy M. Clark pled guilty to one count of aggravated possession of drugs (5th-degree felony) and was sentenced to one year in prison.
At sentencing the trial court told Clark he “could be placed on post-release control for three years,” and the written entry stated post-release control "is optional in this case for three years."
R.C. 2967.28(C) actually authorizes a discretionary term of post-release control "up to three years" for his offense.
The State conceded the trial court misstated the post-release-control term and asked the court to vacate that portion of the sentence.
Clark had already completed his one-year prison term by the time of appeal.
The court held the post-release-control portion of the sentence void and vacated it because the trial court no longer had authority to impose or correct post-release control after Clark completed his prison term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly advised and imposed post-release control	State concedes the court misstated PRC term and asks to vacate PRC portion	Clark argues court misstated term (said "three years" not "up to three years") making PRC incorrect	Court held the trial court misstated PRC; the PRC portion is void and vacated
Whether the error can be corrected after defendant completed prison term	State did not argue rescission was possible after completion	Clark asserts error cannot be corrected after sentence served	Court held trial court lost authority to resentence or add PRC after Clark served his term, so PRC cannot be imposed
Remedy when sentencing entry misstates or omits PRC but oral notice was correct	N/A in this case (State conceded error)	N/A	Court reiterated that if oral notice was correct, a nunc pro tunc entry can fix the entry—but that remedy is unavailable once sentence is served
Effect of void PRC on future sanctions	State might seek enforcement	Clark contends cannot be subject to PRC or sanctions	Court held void PRC is a nullity; defendant cannot be subjected to post-release control after completing prison term

State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 967 N.E.2d 718 (2012) (trial court must notify defendant of PRC at sentencing and incorporate notice in entry)
State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200, 909 N.E.2d 1254 (2009) (both oral and written PRC notice are necessary to authorize parole board)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 942 N.E.2d 332 (2010) (failure to impose statutorily required PRC renders that portion of sentence void)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 817 N.E.2d 864 (2004) (proper remedy for a sentence void for omission of a statutorily mandated term is resentencing)
State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303, 943 N.E.2d 1010 (2011) (trial court may correct entry by nunc pro tunc if oral notice was correct)
State v. Billiter, 134 Ohio St.3d 103, 980 N.E.2d 960 (2012) (a void PRC imposition is a nullity)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526, 1 N.E.3d 382 (2013) (trial court loses authority to correct PRC after defendant completes prison term)