State v. Peterson, 2012 Ohio 87

Peterson was convicted by jury on May 16, 2001, of aggravated robbery and felonious assault, with concurrent four-year terms.
He completed the prison terms and was released, later re-offending and currently incarcerated on a new case with a repeat violent offender specification.
On November 12, 2010, Peterson moved to vacate his original sentence as void for failure to properly advise or impose postrelease control.
The trial court denied the motion on May 25, 2011; Peterson appealed pro se.
The court addressed whether the judgment was void for postrelease-control advisement and whether resentencing was permissible after completion of the sentence.
The panel held that only the void portion of the sentence would be vacated, and Peterson would not be subject to resentencing since he had completed the sentence; the court instructed clerical noting that he is not subject to postrelease control.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly denied vacating the sentence.	Peterson argues the sentence was void for postrelease-control deficiencies.	State contends the motion was correctly denied as an improper or untimely petition for postconviction relief.	Affirmed denial; only void portion may be vacated, and no resentencing due to completion.

State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2007) (postrelease-control must be properly advised or the sentence is void)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2004) (postrelease-control advisement requirements)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2010) (void portion of sentence must be set aside when postrelease control not imposed)
State v. Bailey, 2010-Ohio-1874 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2010) (journal Entry language regarding postrelease control may be sufficient)
State v. Brown, 2011-Ohio-345 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2011) (record should note lack of postrelease control after completion)