State v. Mundy, 2012 Ohio 4201

Mundy was convicted of felonious assault of a peace officer, drug trafficking, and three counts of felonious assault.
The Court of Appeals initially affirmed Mundy’s convictions and later affirmed resentencing after reconsideration.
The case was reopened and the sentencing entry vacated due to improper notification of post-release control, leading to a resentencing.
On appeal from resentencing, some arguments were considered outside the scope under Fischer, and the trial court was found to have jurisdiction to sentence.
A conflict was certified to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding whether failure to impose a mandatory driver’s license suspension rendered the sentence void; the Supreme Court answered affirmatively and remanded to apply Harris.
On remand, the controlling decision requires that Mundy’s sentence include the mandatory driver’s license suspension, and the absence of such suspension renders the sentence void.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does failure to impose the mandatory license suspension render the sentence void?	Mundy argues the license suspension was required and its omission voids the sentence.	State contends the prior rulings allow the error to be corrected on remand and that the sentence can be cured by imposing the suspension.	Yes; the license-suspension portion is void and must be imposed on remand.
On remand, is the remedy limited to imposing the license suspension only?	Mundy seeks only the suspension as the remedy for the voided portion.	State agrees that remedy centers on the mandatory license suspension as dictated by Harris.	Remand is limited to imposing the mandatory license suspension.

State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (2012-Ohio-1908) (mandatory license suspension must be included; void otherwise)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (scope of issues on resentencing matters)