State v. Lincoln, 2011 Ohio 6618

Appellant Wesley D. Lincoln was originally sentenced in 2004 to a ten-year prison term for rape, with the trial court advising a mandatory five-year post-release control term.
The sentencing entry dated August 27, 2004 stated only that Lincoln ‘may be subject to a period of post release control in this case for five (5) years,’ not mandating it.
In 2009 Lincoln moved for re-sentencing; the court subsequently issued a nunc pro tunc entry (December 15, 2009) stating Lincoln would be subject to post-release control for five years, but no hearing was reflected prior to that entry.
A re-sentencing hearing was later held with Lincoln present and counsel, during which objections were raised about notice and the mandatory nature of post-release control were addressed.
After the hearing, the court issued a journal entry in June 2009 correcting the language to reflect a mandatory five-year post-release control term, effectively remedying the prior omission.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to include mandatory status in the original sentence voided it	Lincoln argues the original sentence is void for lacking mandatory post-release control language.	Lincoln contends the nunc pro tunc correction was improper without proper sentencing under Singleton.	First assignment overruled; proper resentencing under Fischer.
Whether Lincoln had adequate notice of the re-sentencing hearing	Lincoln asserts insufficient notice to subpoena witnesses.	Lincoln appeared with counsel and did not request a continuance.	Second assignment overruled; notice adequate; no prejudice shown.

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (mandates that void post-release-control portion be corrected via proper resentencing)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (procedures for correcting improper post-release-control imposition)