State v. Holdcroft, 2012 Ohio 3066

Holdcroft was convicted in 1999 of aggravated arson and arson (two counts) arising from hiring a third party to burn his wife’s car and home; Count2 (complicity to commit aggravated arson) was dismissed as allied offense; the trial court ordered consecutive terms of 10 years (Count1) and 5 years (Count3) with restitution and post-release control (PRC) notices.
In 2010, the trial court conducted a de novo resentencing per State v. Singleton and State v. Fischer to correct PRC notification, imposing five years mandatory PRC for Count1 and up to three years discretionary PRC for Count3, with restitution.
Holdcroft appealed alleging multiple errors, including that the court lacked jurisdiction to impose mandatory PRC on Count1 because he had already completed the ten-year term for that offense and was serving the Count3 term.
The appellate court (Third District) largely overruled Holdcroft’s assignments of error, affirming the resentencing and the PRC imposition.
The court’s analysis centered on whether the sentencing entry at the resentencing preserved jurisdiction to impose PRC, ultimately holding that PRC could be imposed against the aggregate, not merely per-offense, term.
The decision also discusses uniform standards for interpreting “prison term” and “sentence” under R.C. 2929.191 and the impact of Bezak, Hernandez, and related cases on PRC imposition across multi-count cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to impose mandatory PRC on Count1 at resentencing	State—aggregate sentence remained in effect; jurisdiction to impose PRC exists	Holdcroft—Count1 had already completed its term; no jurisdiction	Yes; court had jurisdiction to impose PRC on Count1
Consecutive sentences and due-process concerns under 6th/14th Amendments	State—PRC imposition valid and consistent with statutes after de novo sentencing	Holdcroft—delay and procedural issues render error	No reversible error; assignments rejected
Restitution order and finality of judgment	State—restitution properly set and supported by record	Holdcroft—restitution allocation flawed	Restitution in proper amount; no plain error
Admission of other acts evidence	State—evidence admissible to show motive/intent	Holdcroft—evidence prejudicial	Admissible; harmless error at most
Effectiveness of appellate and trial counsel claims	State—claims insufficient to establish prejudice	Holdcroft—counsel ineffective	Rests on standard; no reversible prejudice shown

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (limits full resentencing; clarifies PRC notification scope)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (void sentence if PRC not properly imposed per-offense)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004-Ohio-6085) (synthesized requirement to notify PRC at sentencing)
State v. Hernandez, 2006-Ohio-126 (2006-Ohio-126) (PRC notification cannot be corrected post-release; focus on aggregate timing)
State v. Simpkins, 2008-Ohio-1197 (2008-Ohio-1197) (PRC notification remedies in post-release context)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006-Ohio-1245) (offense-specific sentencing; aggregate approach not allowed)