State v. Pelfrey, 2013 Ohio 593

Pelfrey was indicted in Scioto County and pled guilty to aggravated robbery, having weapons while under disability, and a firearm specification after plea negotiations.
At a joint-change-of-plea-and-sentencing hearing, the court properly notified him about postrelease control and its potential consequences.
Pelfrey’s judgment of conviction, however, omitted specific postrelease-control consequences included in the hearing notification.
Pelfrey moved for a de novo sentencing hearing alleging the judgment was void due to improper postrelease-control notification.
The trial court denied the de novo sentencing motion.
On appeal, the Fourth District held notification at the hearing was proper, but the judgment entry must be corrected via a nunc pro tunc entry to include the required postrelease-control language.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pelfrey is entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing.	Kline; Pelfrey was properly notified at the hearing but the entry lacked language.	Pelfrey; judgment failed to properly impose postrelease control, voiding the sentence.	De novo hearing not required; remand for nunc pro tunc correction of the entry.

State v. Harris, 4th Dist. No. 11CA15, 2012-Ohio-2185 (2012) (remedy via nunc pro tunc entry when hearing notice was proper but entry omitted required language)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 2012-Ohio-1111 (2012) (new sentencing hearing not required if notice was provided at sentencing)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238 (2010) (correcting a sentence without remand possible when postrelease-control not properly stated)
State v. Triplett, 4th Dist. No. 10CA35, 2011-Ohio-4628 (2011) (recognizes court may correct sentencing entry without remand in certain defects)
State v. Lofton, 4th Dist. No. 11CA16, 2012-Ohio-2274 (2012) (de novo scrutiny of postrelease-control issues on appeal)