State v. Gray, 2022 Ohio 939

Emmanuel Gray was indicted on multiple counts, including a third-degree felony (weapon under disability). After plea negotiations he pled guilty to the felony-3 and other misdemeanors; one felony count was dismissed.
On October 21, 2021 the trial court sentenced Gray to 18 months imprisonment (plus suspended terms on other counts) and orally and in the journal entry imposed "3 years PRC."
At sentencing the prosecutor and court debated whether the court had authority to specify a fixed PRC term; the court said it was instructed to specify a term for processing and imposed 3 years.
The State appealed under R.C. 2953.08(B)(2), arguing that amended R.C. 2967.28 (effective Sept. 30, 2021) limits PRC for nonviolent felony-3s to a discretionary period of up to two years to be imposed by the parole board, not a fixed 3 years by the sentencing court.
Gray conceded the State’s argument in his responsive brief. The Eighth District vacated the 3-year PRC portion of the sentence, held the trial court failed to advise whether PRC was mandatory or discretionary or explain consequences of violation, affirmed the remainder of the sentence, and remanded for a resentencing hearing limited to proper imposition of discretionary PRC under R.C. 2967.28(C).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had authority to impose a fixed 3-year period of postrelease control for a third-degree felony that is neither violent nor a sex offense	Trial: Amended R.C. 2967.28 limits PRC for such felonies to a discretionary period of up to two years imposed by the parole board; the court lacked authority to impose a definite 3 years	Gray: conceded the State’s position and adopted the State’s arguments	Court: Vacated the specified 3-year PRC as contrary to law; remanded for resentencing limited to proper discretionary PRC under R.C. 2967.28(C); affirmed remaining sentence

Woods v. Telb, 733 N.E.2d 1103 (Ohio 2000) (postrelease control is part of the sentence and must be addressed at sentencing)
State v. Fischer, 942 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio 2010) (appellate relief limited to proper imposition of postrelease control)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standards for appellate review of sentences contrary to law)
State v. Grimes, 85 N.E.3d 700 (Ohio 2017) (trial court must advise defendant at sentencing on PRC nature, duration, and consequences)
State v. Harper, 159 N.E.3d 248 (Ohio 2020) (claims about improper PRC must be raised on direct appeal; res judicata applies)
State v. Bishop, 124 N.E.3d 766 (Ohio 2018) (parole board has authority to impose PRC conditions under R.C. 2967.28(D))
State v. Wright, 180 N.E.3d 32 (Ohio 2021) (interpreting R.C. 2967.28 post-H.B. 110 amendments)