State v. Fischer
128 Ohio St. 3d 92
| Ohio | 2010Background
- Fischer was resentenced in 2009 after Bezak voided his original postrelease-control (PRC) term.
- Bezak held that a PRC-error requires a full de novo resentencing for the offense with improper PRC; the dissent warned for a limited remand.
- The majority overruled the Bezak remedy, holding that only the void portion (PRC) may be corrected without a full resentencing, and that other merits may be precluded by res judicata.
- Ohio law recognizes void judgments where statutory terms are not imposed, and Bezak expanded this to PRC-omission cases.
- The court reconciled Bezak with Saxon, limiting remand to correcting PRC imposition rather than redoing the entire sentence.
- The decision clarifies that void sentences may be reviewed on direct appeal or collateral attack, while other aspects remain governed by res judicata and law-of-the-case doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sentence that omits statutorily mandated postrelease control is void and reviewable. | Fischer contends PRC omission voids the sentence and permits review. | Bezak and the court previously required full remand for PRC errors. | Yes; such a sentence is void and may be reviewed, but only the void portion is corrected. |
| What remedy applies when PRC is not properly imposed: full resentencing or limited correction? | Void sentence warrants full resentencing. | Remand for full resentencing is not always necessary; limited correction is possible. | Remedy is limited to correcting the void PRC portion without de novo resentencing. |
| Does res judicata bar review of other merits after void-PRC correction? | Bezak-like proceedings should be fully reviewable; res judicata should not bar merits. | Res judicata still applies to non-void aspects of the conviction and sentence. | Res judicata does not bar review of the void sentence itself, but applies to other merits. |
| Is a resentencing appeal on remand the defendant’s first direct appeal as of right? | The prior void-judgment appeal should be nullity; resentencing is first direct appeal. | Not the first direct appeal; the law-of-the-case doctrine persists. | No; the resentencing appeal is not the first direct appeal as of right. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (postrelease-control error requires remedy; remand issues debated)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004-Ohio-6085) (PRC notice at sentencing is mandatory; void sentence remedy)
- State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (1984-Ohio-?) (void sentence when statutory terms mandatory not imposed)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006-Ohio-1245) (remand on appeal limited in multiple-offense cases; relevance to PRC issues)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (jurisdictional and sentencing framework considerations in modern era)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (PRC issues timing and remedies in older sentences)
- State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (2007-Ohio-4642) (definition of void vs voidable; treatment of errors in sentencing)