State v. Clarke, 2012 Ohio 924

Clarke pled guilty to drug trafficking (a first-degree felony) with a seven-year prison sentence and a stated possibility of five years postrelease control (PRC).
The sentencing court informed Clarke that PRC could be five years, and entered that PRC as part of the sentence, but did not clearly advise that PRC was mandatory.
Clarke finished serving his sentence in December 2010 and, in April 2011, moved to terminate PRC, arguing PRC was improperly imposed.
The trial court denied the motion. Clarke appeals challenging the denial on PRC grounds.
The court vacates the PRC portion and remands to discharge Clarke from PRC; Bezak to apply for resentencing is inapplicable since Clarke has completed his prison term.
The appellate court holds the law-of-the-case doctrine does not bar this appeal, and remands for discharge from PRC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was PRC properly imposed as mandatory and properly notified?	State argues Clarke was notified that PRC was possible and thus adequately informed.	Clarke contends the notice failed to convey mandatory nature and length of PRC.	PRC was not properly imposed; mandatory nature not conveyed; order vacated.
Does the law-of-the-case doctrine bar this appeal?	State argues previous decision precludes challenge to PRC.	Clarke argues law-of-the-case does not bar this collateral attack.	Law-of-the-case does not bar the appeal; PRC issue revisit allowed.

State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (mandatory notification and proper incorporation required in sentencing for PRC)
State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (2009-Ohio-2462) (PRC advisory must notify mandatory nature and five-year term)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (law-of-the-case and collateral attack on nonconforming sentences)
Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (law-of-the-case/issue preclusion in appellate review)