State v. Lewis, 2013 Ohio 809

In 2004, Lewis pleaded guilty to multiple offenses and received an aggregate 10-year sentence with restitution and a mandatory postrelease control up to 5 years.
This court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal in 2005 (State v. Lewis, 2005-Ohio-3736).
In January 2012, the State moved to correct postrelease control; at a video hearing the trial court imposed a five-year postrelease control on Count 1 and adjusted other counts, merging Count 2 into Count 1 as allied offenses.
Only the postrelease-control portion was void; the remainder of the sentence remained intact, leaving the aggregate term at 10 years.
Lewis appealed with five assignments challenging the resentencing; the court held the resentence limited to postrelease-control issues and affirmed the judgment.
The court concluded res judicata bars reconsideration of the valid, non-void portions of the sentence and did not review the original sentence de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a de novo resentencing hearing was required	Lewis contends de novo re-sentencing was required.	Lewis relies on re-sentencing beyond postrelease-control correction.	Overruled
Whether the State breached the plea agreement at resentencing	State violated the plea by seeking reimposition of original terms other than postrelease control.	Prosecutor accurately reflected that only the postrelease-control portion could be addressed.	Overruled
Whether Lewis received ineffective assistance of counsel at resentencing	Counsel was unprepared and failed to review the record or plea terms.	Even assuming deficiency, no prejudice in light of limited resentencing scope.	Overruled
Whether the court abused discretion by sentencing to a maximum and by not explaining intensive-prison program denial	Sentence exceeded proper scope and court did not justify denying intensive-prison program.	Postrelease-control issues were the only reviewable matter; other aspects were preserved by res judicata.	Overruled
Whether the court erred in not giving reasons for disapproving intensive program prison	Arguments regarding program eligibility were improperly neglected.	Not applicable due to res judicata and scope of resentencing.	Overruled

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (res judicata applies to void portions of sentence)
State v. Wilson, 2012-Ohio-1660 (2d Dist. Montgomery Nos. 24461, 24496, 24501) (limits resentencing review by res judicata)
State v. Singleton, 2009-Ohio-6434 (124 Ohio St.3d 173) (reversed by Fischer)
State v. Jones, 2012-Ohio-4446 (2d Dist. Greene No. 2012 CA 8) (single term for postrelease control; multiple periods not permitted)
State v. Simpson, 2007-Ohio-4301 (8th Dist. No. 88301) (postrelease-control handling guidance)