State v. Harris, 2011 Ohio 6762

Harris was indicted in 1997 for aggravated robbery, receiving stolen property, attempted murder, and felonious assault and convicted on all counts, receiving an aggregate 24-year sentence.
He appealed and this court affirmed; a writ of mandamus seeking a new trial was denied.
In 2008 the trial court sua sponte ordered resentencing; in 2009 it readvised Harris on postrelease control, noted the original sentence remained, and documented five years of postrelease control.
On remand, this court ordered a de novo resentencing hearing consistent with State v. Harris, 2010-Ohio-362 (CA-92892).
Between remand and resentencing, the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Fischer, clarifying postrelease control issues; Fischer held voided sentences for absent statutorily mandated postrelease control could be corrected without a de novo resentencing.
The trial court then determined Fischer controlled and declined to conduct a de novo resentencing; Harris challenged this as error, and also argued there was undue delay in sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether de novo resentencing was required on remand.	Harris argues remand required de novo resentencing per appellate mandate.	Harris contends Fischer changed the remedy, but the court should follow remand.	First error overruled; de novo resentencing not required as Fischer controls.
Whether there was an undue delay in sentencing that affected jurisdiction.	Harris claims prolonged delay violated Crim.R. 32(A) and deprived court of jurisdiction.	Resentencing delays do not apply Crim.R. 32(A) and delay here was not due to original sentence timing.	Second error overruled; no unreasonable delay in the original sentencing and Fischer rendered remand unnecessary.

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (postrelease control issues void if not properly imposed; de novo resentencing not required)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (remand for de novo resentencing depending on postrelease control issues)
Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (law of the case doctrine; extraordinary circumstances may apply)
State v. Wright, 2011-Ohio-733 (Ohio App.) (Crim.R. 32 timing considerations do not govern resentencing delay)
State v. Harris, CA-92892, 2010-Ohio-362 (Ohio App.) (remand for de novo resentencing following earlier mandate)