State v. Hines, 953 N.E.2d 387

Hines was convicted on multiple trafficking, possession, and weapons charges in 2004 and sentenced to 15 years 5 months, and appealed challenging jury verdict forms and consecutive sentences.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed in 2006, requiring resentencing under Foster, which occurred later that year.
During resentencing, the Pelfrey decision (2007) clarified jury-verdict form requirements; Hines did not raise the issue on direct appeal after Pelfrey.
In 2010, Hines moved to vacate a void sentence and seek resentencing, arguing improper postrelease-control notice and faulty verdict forms.
The trial court found only the postrelease-control issue could be corrected de novo under Bezak/Fischer, and that other issues were barred by res judicata, leading to a nunc pro tunc correction of the judgment entry.
Hines appeals arguing res judicata barred the correction and seeking resentencing to the least degree; the court affirms the judgment, holding only the postrelease-control error is void and remediable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion for lesser-degree sentencing is barred by res judicata.	Hines argues the verdict-form defect makes his sentence void and modifiable.	State argues Pelfrey issues were raised on direct appeal and res judicata bars relitigation.	barred by res judicata; only postrelease-control correction allowed.

State v. Pelfrey, 112 Ohio St.3d 422 (2007-Ohio-256) (jury verdict forms must specify degree or aggravating element)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (void portion of sentence for improper postrelease control; Bezak hearing limited to postrelease control)