State v. Ferrell, 2013 Ohio 5521

Mark Ferrell was indicted in 1996 for sexual offenses (continuous course of conduct from 1985–1988) against two step-children under 13.
In November 1996 he was convicted of multiple counts: rape and felonious sexual penetration (with force specifications) and four counts of gross sexual imposition.
The trial court imposed six mandatory life sentences (for rape and felonious sexual penetration) and four one-year terms for the gross sexual imposition counts, to be served consecutively; this was affirmed on direct appeal.
Ferrell filed a 2013 "motion to correct void sentence," arguing R.C. 2967.28 required post-release control for his gross sexual imposition convictions and that the trial court failed to notify him.
The trial court denied the motion; the appellate court affirmed, holding S.B. 2’s post-release control provisions apply only to crimes committed on or after July 1, 1996, and Ferrell’s offenses occurred prior to that date.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-release control under S.B. 2 applies to Ferrell’s GSI convictions	State: S.B. 2 does not apply to crimes committed before July 1, 1996	Ferrell: Indicted/sentenced after July 1,1996 so post-release control notice required under R.C. 2967.28	Court held S.B. 2 applies only to crimes committed on/after July 1, 1996; Ferrell’s offenses were 1985–1988, so no post-release control or notice required
Whether the trial court’s silence as to which sentencing regime applied renders the sentence void	State: Silent record presumes correct law was applied; pre-S.B. 2 regime applies	Ferrell: Trial court failed to specify regime; S.B. 2 should apply	Court held a silent record presumes correct sentencing criteria; record shows pre-S.B.2 law applied
Whether consecutive sentences or sentence length errors survive now	State: Issues were or could have been raised on direct appeal and are barred by res judicata	Ferrell: Argues consecutive sentences/length incorrect	Court held these claims are barred by res judicata and not properly before the court
Whether relief requires de novo resentencing	Ferrell: Sentence is void for lack of post-release control notice and requires resentencing	State: No resentencing because S.B.2 inapplicable to pre-1996 crimes	Court denied resentencing; no post-release control obligation existed for these crimes

State v. Rush, 83 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 1998) (S.B. 2 sentencing provisions apply only to crimes committed on or after July 1, 1996)
State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295 (Ohio 1988) (silent trial record raises presumption that trial court followed the law)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars subsequent actions based on claims arising from the same transaction)