State v. Dardinger, 2017 Ohio 1525

Dardinger pled guilty in Feb 2013 to illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material and was placed on three years community control; he did not appeal.
In May 2013 he pled guilty to violating that community control; the court imposed a nine-month prison term and at the combined plea-and-sentencing hearing told him a five-year mandatory postrelease-control term would apply, but the judgment entry did not include postrelease control.
In Sept 2013 the trial court entered a nunc pro tunc judgment adding the five-year mandatory postrelease-control term; that entry was not appealed.
Dardinger was released Jan 22, 2014; the Adult Parole Authority initially told him he would not be placed on postrelease control, then later told him he would and subsequently sent written notice defining the term.
In Jan 2016 Dardinger filed a "Motion to Vacate Postrelease Control," arguing (1) the parole board lacked authority because postrelease control was void for statutory defects, and (2) reimposition after release violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The common pleas court overruled the motion; the First District affirmed as modified, holding the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief and that the sentence/postrelease notification was valid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dardinger)	Held
Jurisdiction to hear motion to vacate postrelease control	Motion was not a cognizable postconviction, Crim.R., mandamus, habeas, or declaratory action	Court should entertain relief to vacate improper postrelease control	Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief; motion should have been dismissed
Whether postrelease-control portion of sentence was void	Court properly notified Dardinger at the combined plea-and-sentencing hearing and later corrected judgment nunc pro tunc	Postrelease-control portion was void because judgment originally omitted it	Notification at combined hearing satisfied statute; nunc pro tunc correction was proper; portion was not void
Whether Adult Parole Authority could impose postrelease control after release	APA could impose postrelease control because judgment (as corrected) authorized it	APA had no authority and its later imposition was invalid	APA acted pursuant to valid judgment; it had authority to impose postrelease control
Double jeopardy from "reimposition" after release	No double jeopardy because defendant knew or should have known his sentence was legally incomplete	Reimposition after release amounted to multiple punishments in successive proceedings	No double jeopardy violation; defendant had no legitimate expectation of finality

State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153, 2008-Ohio-545, 882 N.E.2d 431 (procedural characterization of postconviction-style motions)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332 (postrelease-control portion void if not imposed per statute)
State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200, 2009-Ohio-2462, 909 N.E.2d 1254 (statutory requirements for postrelease control and voidness)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 2012-Ohio-1111, 967 N.E.2d 718 (Crim.R. 36 nunc pro tunc correction of judgment to include postrelease control)
Woods v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504, 733 N.E.2d 1103 (APA’s authority to impose postrelease control derives from judgment of conviction)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, 920 N.E.2d 958 (no legitimate expectation in finality where sentence legally incomplete)
State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d 9 (postrelease-control notification requirements)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-6085, 817 N.E.2d 864 (notification and sentencing requirements)
State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, 814 N.E.2d 837 (plea and sentencing treated as a single proceeding when consecutive)