State v. Heina, 2012 Ohio 4200

In 1999, Heina pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and kidnapping and was sentenced to 19 years in prison.
Approximately nine months later, Heina sought leave to file a delayed appeal, which this Court denied.
Heina moved to withdraw his guilty plea, but the trial court denied the motion; Heina’s appeal was dismissed for noncompliance with local rules.
In 2010, Heina was resentenced to correct an error in imposing post-release control.
Heina appeals, arguing two errors: improper res judicata relating to post-release-control resentencing and failure to merge allied offenses.
The Ninth District affirms post-release-control imposition but vacates the portion reimposing the original sentence as void.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Res judicata and right to appeal resentencing	Fischer bars re-imposition issues; Heina loses right to appeal resentencing.	Fischer limits the void portion to post-release-control error; re-sentencing of the original sentence is void.	First assignment overruled.
Merge/appeal of allied offenses	Consecutive sentences for kidnapping and involuntary manslaughter were improper because offenses merged.	Res judicata applies; the issue could have been raised earlier; the sentence was not void.	Second assignment overruled.

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (void portion limited to post-release-control error; resentencing authority preserved)
State v. McDay, 2012-Ohio-3786 (9th Dist. No. 25751) (void reimposition of original sentence; res judicata applies)
State v. Singfield, 2012-Ohio-1331 (9th Dist. No. 25670) (further expression on res judicata and sentencing issues)