State v. Cockrell, 2017 Ohio 1358

In Oct. 2010 Cockrell pled guilty to aggravated robbery (1st-degree) and burglary and was sentenced to 4 years in prison. The court orally advised a 5-year mandatory postrelease control (PRC) for the robbery and 3-year discretionary PRC for burglary.
The 2010 journal entry, however, incorrectly stated PRC as mandatory for only 3 years. No direct appeal was taken from that entry.
Cockrell was released in Aug. 2014 and placed on postrelease control.
In Dec. 2015 Cockrell pled guilty to having a weapon while under disability; at plea he admitted he was on PRC from the 2010 case. The court imposed 30 months and ordered Cockrell to serve the remaining PRC term consecutively.
Cockrell appealed, arguing the 2010 sentencing entry’s PRC error rendered the PRC void and unenforceable; the trial court’s attempt to enforce PRC after he had completed the underlying prison term was improper.

Issue	State's Argument	Cockrell's Argument	Held
Whether a sentencing entry that omits or misstates a statutorily mandated PRC term is void and unenforceable	R.C. 2967.28(B) makes PRC "arise by operation of law" and the error does not negate the statutory PRC when defendant was orally notified	The 2010 journal entry misstated mandatory PRC (3 vs. 5 years), so PRC was void because trial court failed to properly impose it in the journal	Court held the PRC portion of the 2010 sentence was void: Supreme Court precedent requires proper imposition, oral notice, and a correct journal entry; the State’s reliance on R.C. 2967.28(B) is misplaced
Whether Cockrell could be resentenced or punished for PRC violations after completing the prison term	PRC still effective by operation of law; remedy is available under statutory mechanisms	Once Cockrell completed his prison term and the journal entry was not corrected before release, the court cannot now impose or enforce PRC	Court held Carter cannot be resentenced or punished for violations of the void PRC; resentencing to fix PRC after release is barred (assignment re consecutive sentence rendered moot)

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332 (void sentence lacking statutorily mandated PRC may be reviewed at any time)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 172, 2009-Ohio-6434, 920 N.E.2d 958 (for sentences imposed on or after July 11, 2006 R.C. 2929.191 provides a remedy; but failure to impose PRC renders sentence void if not corrected before release)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 2012-Ohio-1111, 967 N.E.2d 718 (postrelease control cannot be imposed or corrected after defendant completes the prison term)
State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200, 2009-Ohio-2462, 909 N.E.2d 1254 (court rejected theory that executive branch can impose PRC when trial court failed to do so)
Woods v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504, 2000-Ohio-171, 733 N.E.2d 1103 (addressing requirements for informing defendant about PRC)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-6085, 817 N.E.2d 864 (same)