State v. Reid, 2012 Ohio 2666

Reid was convicted of Murder with a firearm specification and Having a Weapon Under a Disability, with related firearm specifications merged; he was acquitted of other charges.
Original judgment imposed an indeterminate 15 years to life for Murder and six months for Having a Weapon Under a Disability, plus a three-year firearm specification term, with post-release control language.
The court affirmed the sentence on direct appeal, and the issue of post-release control was later found defective in its imposition.
In 2011, Reid was resentenced to correct the post-release control defect, with the scope limited to that correction per Fischer.
Reid argued for a de novo sentencing hearing and claimed prejudice from state delay, while the State argued only the corrective portion was appropriate under Fischer.
The appellate court held that under Fischer only the void post-release-control portion was susceptible to correction, not the entire sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court err by not conducting a de novo resentencing?	Reid contends Bezak requires a de novo hearing due to a void sentence.	State argues Fischer limits re-sentencing to correcting post-release control, not full de novo review.	Reversed/overruled; Fischer controls; only post-release control defect corrected.
Was the delay in resentencing prejudicial or prejudicial enough to require different relief?	Reid argues delay destroyed exculpatory evidence and violated due process.	Delay did not prejudice; the core sentence components remained valid under Fischer.	Delay not prejudicial; no reverse relief required.
Did the correction implicate retroactive application of R.C. 2929.191?	Reid claims retroactive application violates the Ohio Constitution.	Fischer allows nunc pro tunc correction or correction under 2929.191 independently of retroactivity concerns.	Not error; Fischer allows correction; retroactivity not violated.
Were mitigation and other sentencing rights properly limited given the scope of correction?	Reid claims error for limiting mitigation evidence at re-sentencing.	Mitigation evidence was immaterial because scope was limited to post-release-control correction.	No error; scope was properly limited.

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (limits re-sentencing scope to correcting void post-release-control imposition)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (voidness of post-release-control imposition; reverse de novo rule later overruled)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (pre-Fischer rule on de novo sentencing for pre-July 11, 2006 sentences)
State v. Lincoln, 2011-Ohio-6618 (Ohio) (recognizes Fischer framework and post-release correction authority)
State v. Reid, 2003-Ohio-6079 (2d Dist. Montgomery) (prior appellate reasoning on related issues in this case)