State v. Heard, 2018 Ohio 314

In April 2007 Heard was indicted on five counts (trafficking, possession, possession of criminal tools, and two counts of having weapons while under disability); firearm specifications were included on Counts One and Two.
On April 4, 2008 Heard signed two plea forms and pleaded guilty to Count One (trafficking, F5) and Count Two (possession, F1); Counts Three–Five and firearm specifications were dismissed.
The trial court’s April 9, 2008 entry imposed concurrent terms and referenced five years of post-release control (PRC) in language that left some ambiguity; an amended/nunc pro tunc entry was filed July 13, 2010 clarifying three years discretionary PRC for Count One and five years mandatory PRC for Count Two.
Heard completed his prison term in August 2010 and began PRC; in 2013 he moved to void part of the judgment and withdraw his pleas (claims denied); in 2017 he moved to find the Parole Board lacked jurisdiction and to withdraw his plea for alleged breach.
The trial court denied the 2017 motions as factually unsupported, untimely, and barred by res judicata. Heard appealed.
The appellate court affirmed: (1) no breach of the plea agreement (Heard had signed and pled to both counts); and (2) Parole Board jurisdiction was proper because Heard remained subject to a mandatory five-year PRC on Count Two regardless of any error as to Count One.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea agreement was breached by convicting Heard of two counts when he allegedly agreed to plead only to Count Two	State: Plea forms and record show Heard pleaded guilty to both Counts One and Two; no breach	Heard: He agreed to plead only to Count Two; conviction on two counts breached the agreement	No breach; record shows two signed plea forms; claim untimely and res judicata bars relitigation
Whether the Parole Board lacks jurisdiction because the court mis-stated PRC for Count One (three years vs. up to three years)	State: Even if Count One’s PRC language were imperfect, Count Two carries mandatory five-year PRC, so Parole Board jurisdiction remains	Heard: Trial court misstated Count One’s discretionary PRC and thus Parole Board lacks jurisdiction	Denied; issue previously raised (res judicata) and, in any event, mandatory five-year PRC on Count Two preserves Parole Board jurisdiction

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (breach of plea agreement remedies include rescission or specific performance)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (failure to properly impose required PRC renders that part of the sentence void but other aspects remain subject to res judicata)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (trial court must notify defendant at sentencing regarding PRC and consequences of violating it)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (res judicata bars relitigation of claims already decided on the merits)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (2013) (reaffirming principles regarding voidness of improperly imposed PRC and its reviewability)