State v. Mace, 2014 Ohio 3040

David Mace was sentenced in 2003 to 10 years’ imprisonment for multiple counts of gross sexual imposition and attempted gross sexual imposition.
The sentencing entry stated: “Post release control is part of this prison sentence for the maximum period allowed for the above felony(s) under R.C. 2967.28.” (it did not specify a term in years).
Mace completed his prison term in March 2013 and in August 2013 filed a motion to terminate postrelease control.
The trial court denied the motion; Mace appealed the denial.
The State argued the sentencing transcript (not included in the appellate record) likely contains an oral advisement of the specific postrelease-control term, and thus regularity should be presumed.
The court affirmed the denial of relief but remanded with instruction that the trial court enter a record notation that Mace, having completed his sentence, cannot be resentenced and therefore is not subject to postrelease control.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether postrelease-control requirement is invalid when the journal entry fails to state the specific term	State: Presume regularity; absent the sentencing transcript in the record, assume the court orally advised defendant of the specific term	Mace: Journal entry is deficient because it did not specify the mandatory term, rendering postrelease control invalid	The court affirmed denial of Mace’s motion but required the trial court to note that, because Mace already served his sentence, he cannot be resentenced and thus is not subject to postrelease control
Whether a sentencing error as to postrelease control can be corrected after the defendant has completed the prison term	State: Implicitly argues correction is possible if oral advisement existed	Mace: Once sentence is served, the court cannot resentence to correct imposition of postrelease control	Court: Citing precedent, once sentence served the court cannot resentence; thus the trial court should note on the record that the defendant cannot be subjected to postrelease control

State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200, 2009-Ohio-2462, 909 N.E.2d 1254 (holding that absent a proper sentencing entry imposing postrelease control, the parole board’s imposition cannot be enforced)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961 (sentencing errors cannot be corrected by resentencing after sentence is served)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332 (clarifying aspects of postrelease-control jurisprudence)
State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568 (discussing limits on resentencing after sentence served)
Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395, 2006-Ohio-126, 844 N.E.2d 301 (addressing finality of sentences and post-sentence correction limits)