State v. Lopez, 2022 Ohio 2302

Lopez pled guilty to importuning (R.C. 2907.07), a fifth-degree felony and a "felony sex offense," and received community control in August 2020.
He was later declared an absconder and, after arrest, stipulated to violations; the court revoked community control and imposed a 9‑month prison term (Nov. 18, 2021).
At the same hearing the court also imposed a 12‑month sentence in a separate fourth‑degree felony case (21CR‑3964) and ordered the sentences consecutive.
The trial court advised (and entered) that post‑release control would be "up to two years," and Lopez signed a notice repeating that advisory.
The state appealed, arguing the importuning conviction required a mandatory five‑year period of post‑release control under R.C. 2967.28(B)(1).
The appellate court vacated the "up to two years" PRC term for the importuning sentence and remanded for resentencing limited to imposing the statutorily mandated five‑year PRC and providing the required advisements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing "up to two years" of post‑release control for importuning (a felony sex offense) instead of the mandatory five years required by R.C. 2967.28(B)(1)	The sentence is contrary to law; R.C. 2967.28(A)(3) and (B)(1) mandate a five‑year PRC for felony sex offenses	Trial court had provided PRC advisements during plea and Lopez acknowledged understanding; no contemporaneous objection	Court: Error. Imposition of "up to two years" for importuning is contrary to law. Vacated that PRC term and remanded for resentencing to impose mandatory five‑year PRC.
Whether the appellate court may simply modify the sentence to add the five‑year PRC without remand	State suggested appellate modification to add the five‑year PRC	Defense implicitly opposed remandless modification; trial court must advise at sentencing	Court: Rejected modification. Remand required so trial court can give the statutory advisements at a sentencing hearing and incorporate them into the entry.

State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate review standard for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Grimes, 84 N.E.3d 450 (Ohio 2017) (trial court must notify offender of post‑release control at sentencing; omission makes sentence contrary to law)
State v. Jordan, 818 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio 2004) (trial court must incorporate PRC advisements into the sentencing entry)
State v. Harper, 140 N.E.3d 1260 (Ohio 2020) (state may appeal a sentence that is contrary to law)
Woods v. Telb, 733 N.E.2d 1103 (Ohio 2000) (purpose of post‑release control is community reintegration and behavior modification)