State v. Qualls, 2010 Ohio 5316

In 2002, Qualls pled guilty to kidnapping and aggravated murder with a firearm specification and received a 33-to-life sentence.
Qualls did not appeal his conviction.
In 2004 he sued for mandamus over records; appellate and Supreme Court proceedings followed and ended without relief.
In 2006 he sought postconviction relief and resentencing; trial court denied, and appellate review followed.
On January 25, 2010, Qualls moved for a de novo sentencing hearing arguing post-release control was improperly imposed.
The State conceded an error in the sentencing entry but sought a nunc pro tunc correction to reflect actual sentencing events; the court later denied the de novo hearing and issued the nunc pro tunc entry, leading to this appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether de novo sentencing was proper when post-release control was imposed on a different count	Qualls	Qualls	Denied; post-release control was imposed on kidnapping, not aggravated murder, and nunc pro tunc correction was proper
Whether the seven-year-plus delay to sentencing constituted a jurisdictional flaw	Qualls	Qualls	Denied; no delay in sentencing occurred; res judicata limits other challenges

State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 884 N.E.2d 568 (2008-Ohio-1197) (failure to impose post-release control renders judgment void; res judicata does not bar sentencing challenges)
State v. Gause, 182 Ohio App.3d 143, 911 N.E.2d 977 (2009-Ohio-2140) (nunc pro tunc correction as remedy for omitted post-release-control language)
Takacs v. Baldwin, 106 Ohio App.3d 196, 665 N.E.2d 736 (1995-Ohio-App.3d) (remedial use of nunc pro tunc entry for sentencing corrections)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 920 N.E.2d 958 (2009-Ohio-6434) (post-2006 sentencing procedure requirements)