State v. Harper (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 2913

Andre D. Harper pleaded guilty to third-degree robbery; at sentencing the court imposed a three-year prison term plus a mandatory three-year period of postrelease control (PRC).
The trial court gave oral notice of PRC and provided PRC-consequence information in a separate document, but the written sentencing entry did not include the Grimes-required notice that violations subject the offender to consequences under R.C. 2967.28.
Harper did not appeal his sentence, was released to PRC, and later charged with violating PRC; he moved to vacate the PRC portion of his sentence as void under State v. Grimes.
The trial court denied relief; the Tenth District held the omission rendered the sentence void in part but nevertheless remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry to add the required “consequences” language.
The Ohio Supreme Court granted review, declined to address Grimes’ retroactivity, and held that omission of the consequences language does not make the PRC portion void ab initio; such errors are voidable and must be raised on direct appeal (res judicata applies). The court reversed the appellate court’s remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Harper)	Held
Does State v. Grimes apply retroactively to final convictions?	Grimes announced a new rule and should not apply retroactively to final convictions.	Grimes interprets existing statute and should apply retroactively (or at least to Harper).	Court declined to decide retroactivity as unnecessary to resolution.
Does omission of Grimes-required "consequences" language in the sentencing entry render the PRC portion of the sentence void?	Omission does not render the sentence void; omission is not a jurisdictional defect and is best treated as a voidable sentencing error.	Omission (per Grimes) renders the PRC sanction void and subject to collateral attack at any time.	Court held such errors render the sentence voidable, not void; sentencing court had jurisdiction, so error must be raised on direct appeal and is barred by res judicata if not.
Is nunc pro tunc correction/remand appropriate to fix the sentencing entry after the fact?	Not required where omission does not render sentence void; remand for nunc pro tunc was improper.	Appellate court should remand to enter required consequences language nunc pro tunc.	Court reversed remand and admonished that correction must be sought on direct appeal (not via collateral attack) when court had jurisdiction.

State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (2017) (held sentencing entry must include notice that PRC violations subject offender to R.C. 2967.28 consequences)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (recognized prior approach treating improper PRC imposition as rendering sentence void)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (held failure to give statutorily required PRC notice at sentencing rendered sentence void)
State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (1984) (trial court exceeded statutory authority; sentence treated as void)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007) (addressed consequences of void PRC sentences; later limited/overruled in part)
Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (failure to follow certain statutory procedures does not necessarily divest a court of subject-matter jurisdiction; such errors may be voidable)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (judgment void only when court lacked subject-matter or personal jurisdiction)
Ex parte Shaw, 7 Ohio St. 81 (1857) (early articulation that judgment is void only where court lacked jurisdiction)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009) (described statutory remedy R.C. 2929.191 for certain PRC defects and limited prior void-sentence approach)