State v. Gonzalez, 952 N.E.2d 502

Gonzalez appeals resentencing to 38 years after Alford pleas to four counts of rape of a minor and one count of felonious assault
Initial 2006 sentence was 48 years; remanded for resentencing under State v. Foster
Motions to withdraw pleas were filed; at resentencing the court restructured terms to run concurrent portions, reducing total sentence
Bezak issue: postrelease-control notification alleged voidness; nunc pro tunc entries issued in 2010 addressing Baker and postrelease-control obligations
Defendant raises 14 assignments of error addressing postrelease-control, plea validity, indictment sufficiency, merger, ineffective assistance, weight/reduction of charges, constitutional challenges; appeal challenging all facets of resentencing and related judgments

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Postrelease control notice sufficiency	Gonzalez argues Bezak/vacated entries voidify sentences due to improper notice	Gonzalez contends notices were defective and voided sentences requiring de novo resentencing	Not well taken; notices incorporated into judgments and proper under law
Motions to withdraw pleas treated as post-sentencing motions	Motions should be treated as pre-sentencing withdrawals due to void judgments	Corrections permit post-sentencing withdrawal now that postrelease-control issues resolved	Valid; proceedings continued as post-sentencing motions
Validity of Alford pleas and their voluntariness	Alford pleas flawed due to alleged misstatement of maximum sentence and postrelease-control terms	Record shows substantial compliance; misstatement but not prejudicial	Pleas properly accepted; no reversible prejudice shown
Indictment sufficiency and Colon/Horner framework	Indictment lacked required mental-state specification for rape counts, violating Colon	Indictment tracked statutory language; Horner controls; no defect	Indictment constitutionally sufficient; Horner controls; no defect

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (remand for resentencing; framework for post-Foster sentencing)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (voidness and postrelease-control notification issues discussed)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004-Ohio-6085) (notice of postrelease control must be in sentencing hearing and judgment entry)
Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425 (2006-Ohio-5082) (notice to reasonable person in sentencing entry suffices to convey postrelease-control)
State v. Milazo, 2008-Ohio-5137 (6th Dist. 2008) (interpretation of sentencing entries to incorporate postrelease-control notice)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (void-judgment/Res judicata distinction clarified; only void portions excised from preclusion)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (2007-Ohio-4642) (post-Blakely forfeiture of structural errors unless preserved)
State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 (2010-Ohio-3830) (indictment tracks statute not defective for missing mental-state language when statute omits it)
State v. Gonzalez, 154 Ohio App.3d 9 (2003-Ohio-4421) (typographical discrepancy did not preclude knowing, voluntary plea)
State v. Lampkin, 2010-Ohio-1971 (6th Dist. 2010) (res judicata considerations post-Baker related decisions)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (voidness and postrelease-control notification issues discussed)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (Crim.R. 11 substantial compliance standard for guilty pleas)