State v. Johnson, 2016 Ohio 7931

Kenneth R. Johnson was serving post-release control from a 2013 Perry County conviction when he committed new offenses in Muskingum County (guilty plea Feb 15, 2015).
Perry County sentencing entry (Oct. 30, 2013) notified Johnson of post-release control but used language that did not expressly describe the R.C. 2929.141(A) consequence (consecutive prison term for violation).
Muskingum County sentenced Johnson (May 11, 2015), found he was on post-release control, and converted the remainder of that post-release control into a prison term to be served consecutively under R.C. 2929.141.
Johnson moved to vacate the judicial sanction (May 23, 2016), arguing the Perry County notification was legally defective and therefore the Muskingum court could not impose the statutory consecutive sanction.
Trial court denied the motion; Johnson appealed.
The Fifth District reversed and remanded, holding the Perry County notification’s failure to advise Johnson of the R.C. 2929.141(A) consequences barred the Muskingum court from imposing those sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior sentencing court’s post-release control notification must include R.C. 2929.141(A) penalty consequences (consecutive prison term)	State: prior notification was proper and Muskingum could impose R.C. 2929.141 sanctions	Johnson: Perry County’s notification was defective for failing to advise of R.C. 2929.141(A) consequences, so Muskingum cannot impose judicial sanction	Held: Failure to advise of R.C. 2929.141(A) consequences in the Perry County entry prevents imposition of those sanctions by the Muskingum court; reversed and remanded

State v. Jordan, 817 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio 2004) (establishes rules on postrelease control notification at sentencing)
State v. Bybee, 28 N.E.3d 149 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) (holds trial court need not include R.C. 2929.141 penalty detail in postrelease control notification)