State v. Ford, 2014 Ohio 1859

Ford was convicted in 2000 of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, weapons under disability, and gun specifications; his sentences were to run consecutively.
On remand in 2001, the trial court resentenced to maximum, consecutive terms but Ford did not appeal.
In 2012 Ford filed a pro se motion for resentencing alleging Crim.R. 32(C) defects, post-release-control errors, improper felony degree, and life sentence issues.
At a 2013 hearing, the court found a Crim.R. 32(C) defect and post-release-control error, and issued an amended termination entry nunc pro tunc addressing conviction manner and degree.
Ford argued ex post facto concerns and entitlement to counsel; the court addressed four issues, permitting correction without de novo resentencing and without appointing counsel.
The appellate court ultimately held the post-release-control error for the aggravated-robbery conviction void and remanded to vacate that post-release control, while other issues were resolved (some affirming, some requiring no relief).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ex post facto applies to post-release-control correction	Ford contends Fischer retroactivity should require de novo resentencing	State argues Fischer permits correction without de novo resentencing	No ex post facto violation; limited correction allowed
Whether counsel must be provided at post-release-control correction	Ford claims right to counsel at resentencing	Court may proceed without counsel for correction of post-release control	No right to counsel for this ministerial correction
Whether clerical errors in Crim.R. 32(C) can be corrected nunc pro tunc	Alleged Crim.R. 32(C) defect required hearing	Nunc pro tunc entry suffices to correct the clerical defect	Nunc pro tunc correction proper; no new appeal required
Whether the 2001 resentencing misidentified offense degree or imposed improper life sentence	Ford argues life sentence and first-degree felony label were errors	Errors were clerical or mislabeling; not fatal	Clerical error corrected; no de novo resentencing required; res judicata limited relief
Whether Ford could be subjected to post-release control for completed sentences	Completed sentences cannot be subjected to post-release control	Post-release control can be imposed for remaining terms where applicable	Holdcroft applied; post-release control error for aggravated robbery sustained and vacated; others not remanded

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (void post-release-control provision allows correction without full resentencing)
State v. Reid, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24841 (2012-Ohio-2666) (limits de novo re-sentencing where only P-R-C defect is corrected)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (pre-Fischer rule regarding de novo resentencing predicated on Bezak overruled)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (held full de novo resentencing required for pre-July 11, 2006 sentences)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (2013-Ohio-5014) (authority to correct post-release-control for multiple terms; sequence matters)
State v. Kish, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99895 (2014-Ohio-699) (which sentence is served first when multiple consecutive terms; ambiguity favors defendant)
State v. Schleiger, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2011-11-012 (2013-Ohio-1110) (conflict on right to counsel at post-release-control resentencing)
State v. Peace, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-12-04 (2012-Ohio-6118) (defendant has right to counsel at resentencing to correct post-release-control error)
State v. Stallworth, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25461 (2011-Ohio-4492) (cases rejecting right to counsel at post-release-control hearing)
State v. Jackson, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-08-154 (2012-Ohio-993) (merger and res judicata considerations in post-release-control context)