State v. Gonzalez, 959 N.E.2d 596

Gonzalez was convicted in 2002 on two counts of felonious assault (both second-degree) in Hamilton County.
He challenged his convictions in prior appellate proceedings and in a 2006 Rule 26(B) reopening application.
In June 2010, Gonzalez moved in the trial court to rese ntence due to void sentences for inadequate postrelease-control notification.
The trial court overruled the motion; Gonzalez timely appealed challenging notification and, in a separate theory, allied-offenses implications.
On appeal, the court declined to rule on the allied-offenses challenge because it was not raised in the motion and thus not preserved for review.
The court held the sentences void for lack of adequate postrelease-control notification and remanded for proper imposition of postrelease control.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentences were void for inadequate postrelease-control notification	Gonzalez	Gonzalez	Sentences void; remanded for correction
Whether the trial court erred by not addressing allied-offenses challenge	Gonzalez	Gonzalez	Not reached; precluded on appeal

State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (allied-offenses/notification considerations)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (void sentence when postrelease-control not imposed; reviewable on appeal or collateral attack)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004-Ohio-6085) (postrelease-control necessity at sentencing)
State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006-Ohio-5795) (courts may correct void judgments; authority cited for correction of void sentences)
Boswell, None (2009-Ohio-1577) (utilized for standards on void judgments and reviewability)