State v. Jacobs, 2018 Ohio 3218

Caleb Jacobs was convicted of felonious assault, assault, and escape and sentenced April 1, 2013 to 4.5 years imprisonment.
At the sentencing hearing the trial court told Jacobs postrelease control for five years was mandatory; the written judgment entry said he “may” be subject to five years (mistakenly discretionary language).
Jacobs was released November 24, 2016 and supervised by the Adult Parole Authority (APA); he violated postrelease control and was returned to prison for six months on August 3, 2017.
On November 9, 2017 Jacobs moved to vacate the postrelease-control portion of his sentence and the violation, arguing the written entry’s “may” language rendered the postrelease-control term void.
The trial court denied the motion and issued a nunc pro tunc entry on January 9, 2018 correcting “may” to “shall”; Jacobs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing entry’s use of “may” (discretionary) renders the imposition of mandatory postrelease control void	State: The court properly notified Jacobs at the sentencing hearing; the written entry’s wording was a non-jurisdictional/clerical defect and did not void postrelease control	Jacobs: The written entry’s discretionary wording made the postrelease-control portion of the sentence void, invalidating the violation and sanction	The court held the sentencing hearing provided mandatory notice; the written error was non-jurisdictional and did not render the sentence void
Whether Jacobs’s challenge is barred by res judicata	State: Because the sentence is not void, the claim could have been raised on direct appeal and is barred by res judicata	Jacobs: N/A (relies on sentence being void to avoid res judicata)	The court held the sentence is not void, so the claim is barred by res judicata

State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (2017) (trial court must notify at sentencing and incorporate notice into journal entry; focus is on hearing notice)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (court must notify defendant at sentencing about postrelease control and include notice in entry)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (a sentence that omits statutorily mandated postrelease control is void and reviewable at any time)
Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425 (2006) (preeminent purpose of R.C. 2967.28 is offender notice at sentencing that liberty may be restrained after release)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (statutorily compliant notification elements for postrelease control)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard of review for appellate reversal of sentence under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (doctrine of res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)