State v. Heavilin, 2016 Ohio 1284

In 2012 Dennis Heavilin pleaded no contest to five offenses (two vandalism, one inducing panic, two intimidation) and five attendant firearm specifications; the court accepted the pleas.
The trial court merged allied offenses so three charges remained; the court sentenced Heavilin to concurrent jail terms on the crimes and a three-year term on a firearm specification for a total of four years; the original entry stated post-release control was "optional."
The State later moved to correct post-release control; at a resentencing the court imposed mandatory three years of post-release control on the intimidation count and issued a new sentencing entry that substantially replicated the earlier entry but clarified post-release control.
Heavilin appealed the resentencing, raising two assignments of error: (1) the court improperly issued a subsequent sentencing order modifying prior post-release control, and (2) a recused judge lacked authority to rule further in the case.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the sentencing entry failed to dispose of all firearm specifications; the court sentenced on only one firearm specification and did not address two remaining specifications, so the order was not a final, appealable order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly issued a subsequent sentencing entry correcting post-release control	State: correction was proper to impose mandatory post-release control where required	Heavilin: trial court lacked authority to modify prior sentencing entry; procedural defect	Court did not reach merits — dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction because sentence was not final
Whether a recused judge could make subsequent rulings in the case	State: not directly argued on appeal; focus on finality and sentencing defects	Heavilin: judge was recused and thus lacked authority to hear subsequent motions or enter rulings	Court did not reach merits — dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the sentencing entry was a final, appealable order when it failed to address all charged specifications	State: sentencing complied with statutory limits if court viewed specifications as part of same act or otherwise intended to impose on one spec	Heavilin: order modifying post-release control and other defects were appealable errors	Held: the entry was not final or appealable because it omitted disposition of two firearm specifications; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Whitaker-Merrell Co. v. Geupel Constr. Co., 29 Ohio St.2d 184 (Ohio 1972) (appellate courts must raise jurisdictional questions sua sponte)