State v. Nix, 2012 Ohio 1160

Appellant Anthony Nix was sentenced on September 19, 2005 to one count each of voluntary manslaughter, abduction, and gross abuse of a corpse for a total of 16 years; a concurrent two-to-six year drug sentence was imposed and the State did not pursue witness intimidation.
On December 3, 2010, Nix filed a pro se Motion for Resentence asserting the sentence was void for failure to impose postrelease control and requested a Bezak de novo resentencing.
The State conceded the error and requested a video-conference resentencing.
On April 29, 2011, Nix moved to Withdraw Guilty Plea, claiming he did not fully understand the original plea terms due to not knowing about mandatory postrelease control.
On May 11, 2011, Nix was resentenced with proper postrelease control advisement; the same 16-year term was re-imposed and a mandatory five-year postrelease control was added.
On May 24, 2011, the trial court denied the motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, Nix filed a notice of appeal challenging the original and resentencing judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the plea knowingly and voluntarily made given lack of mandatory postrelease control advisement?	Nix argues the plea was not knowing due to failure to inform of mandatory postrelease control.	State contends the issue was not properly preserved for appeal and that advisement issue does not invalidate the plea.	No reversible error; first assignment of error overruled.
Was resentencing by video conference permissible without explicit waiver of physical presence?	Nix contends video resentencing violated Crim.R. 43(A) and constitutional rights.	State argues video procedure complies with Bezak and related cases.	Video conferencing for resentencing was permissible; second assignment of error overruled.

State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (established de novo Bezak resentencing framework for post-1982 offenses with postrelease control issues)
State v. Fisher, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (overruled Bezak on other grounds in some respects; governs post-2006 resentencing)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (reaffirmed certain Bezak procedures post-2006)
State v. Gray, 2011-Ohio-4570 (5th Dist. 2011) (video appearance treated as having same effect as physical presence for certain proceedings)
State v. Payton, 2011-Ohio-4386 (5th Dist. 2011) (video-conferencing allowed for resentencing for pre-2006 offenses with proper notice)
State v. Dunivant, 2011-Ohio-6874 (5th Dist. 2011) (video procedure not structural error; counsel not objecting did not require reversal)
State v. Mullins, 2011-Ohio-1256 (Franklin App. 2011) (harmless error theory applied to video-resentencing issues)
State v. Steimle, 2011-Ohio-1071 (8th Dist. 2011) (Crim.R. 43(A) waiver requirements for video resentencing)