State v. Evans, 2011 Ohio 4992

Evans was convicted in 2007 in Medina County for multiple felonies and appealed the judgments.
This Court affirmed after supplementing the record with a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry.
In 2009 Evans petitioned to vacate his sentence, arguing entitlement to a de novo sentencing hearing and improper postrelease-control imposition.
The trial court denied relief; this Court noted postrelease control was not correctly imposed and identified R.C. 2929.191 as the remedy.
A resentencing hearing was held; the November 3, 2010 entry re-imposed the original sentence and correctly imposed mandatory postrelease control.
Evans timely appealed raising three assignments of error challenging the resentencing and related issues; the Court partially vacated the entry and affirmed otherwise.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a de novo sentencing hearing was required	Evans argued for a new de novo hearing due to void sentence.	Evans contends postrelease-control error mandated new sentencing.	No de novo hearing required; remedy under 2929.191 limited to postrelease-control corrections.
Whether the court properly corrected postrelease control under 2929.191	Singleton remedy should allow full re-sentencing.	Remedy limited to postrelease-control issues, not full re-sentencing.	Remedy limited to postrelease-control imposition; non-postrelease portions exceeded authority and were vacated.
Whether consecutive sentences for allied offenses were proper under 2941.25	Challenged consecutive sentences as allied offenses of similar import.	Maintains the trial court correctly imposed consecutive terms.	Second and third assignments overruled; issues deemed barred by res judicata and law of the case.
Whether the court properly weighed seriousness and recidivism factors under 2929.12 when imposing or re-imposing sentences	Disagrees with reevaluation of sentencing factors given lack of prior felony record.	Argues the re-imposition complied with statutory requirements.	Raised issues deemed abandoned or barred by res judicata; no reversal on these grounds.

State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (remedy under 2929.191 governs postrelease-control corrections)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (only offending portions of sentence reviewable when postrelease control is misimposed)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006-Ohio-1245) (res judicata bars re-litigation of issues that could have been raised on direct appeal)
Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (law-of-the-case doctrine governs subsequent proceedings after appellate decisions)
Hubbard ex rel. Creed v. Sauline, 74 Ohio St.3d 402 (1996) (law-of-the-case and related doctrines cited in retrial contexts)