State v. Roberts, 2017 Ohio 1060

Background

Mallon Roberts was convicted of murder in 2005 and exhausted multiple direct and collateral appeals before filing a 2015 "Motion to Correct Judgment Entry Pursuant to Criminal Rule 36."
Roberts argued his judgment/sentence failed to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) and statutory requirements governing repeat-violent-offender findings, indefinite sentencing, jail-time credit, court costs, and postrelease control.
The common pleas court denied relief; Roberts appealed that denial to the First District Court of Appeals.
The appellate court treated Roberts' motion as seeking correction under Crim.R. 36 and/or as a challenge to a potentially void judgment.
The court held Crim.R. 36 does not permit correction of legal errors (repeat-violent-offender status, indefinite sentence, jail-time-credit calculation omission) and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief on those grounds via Crim.R. 36 or other recast procedures.
The court found, however, that the sentence improperly imposed postrelease control for murder (a special felony) under the statutes in effect at sentencing, rendering that portion of the judgment void and subject to correction; it modified to dismiss the Crim.R. 36 motion and remanded for resentencing limited to correcting postrelease control.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Crim.R. 36 can correct defects in the judgment regarding repeat-violent-offender status and indefinite sentence	Roberts sought correction under Crim.R. 36 to conform the judgment to statutory sentencing rules	Crim.R. 36 only corrects clerical/factual errors, not legal errors	Denied — errors of law not correctable under Crim.R. 36; court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under that rule
Whether Crim.R. 36 or later statutes permit correction of jail-time-credit where the judgment omitted a calculation	Roberts asserted the judgment failed to include the statutorily required jail-time-credit calculation and sought correction	The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction record showed 13 days credit; Roberts argued omission of calculation in the judgment itself	Denied — omission alleged a legal/statutory duty, not a clerical miscalculation; post-2012 statutory "continuing jurisdiction" did not apply to pre-2012 sentences
Whether the motion could be recast under other procedural vehicles (postconviction relief, Crim.R. 33/32.1, mandamus, habeas, Civ.R. 60(B))	Roberts sought relief but did not specify a statute/rule; court could recast the motion	Robert argued his claims required review despite procedural posture	Denied — motion alleged statutory (not constitutional) errors or procedural defects not cognizable under those other remedies in these circumstances
Whether postrelease control imposed for murder was authorized and if an unauthorized term is correctable as void	Roberts challenged inclusion of postrelease control in his murder sentence	State relied on original sentencing entry; Roberts argued postrelease control was unauthorized for murder under statutes in effect	Granted in part — postrelease control for murder was unauthorized; that portion of the sentence is void and the court may correct it; remanded for resentencing limited to correcting postrelease control

Key Cases Cited

Heddleston v. Mack, 84 Ohio St.3d 213 (1988) (Crim.R. 36 may correct clerical errors such as miscalculation of jail-time credit)
State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (courts always retain jurisdiction to correct void judgments)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (postrelease control statutes did not authorize postrelease control for special felonies like murder under the law then in effect)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (an unauthorized postrelease-control term renders the sentence void and subject to correction)
Dunbar v. State, 136 Ohio St.3d 181 (2013) (distinguishes void from voidable judgments; errors in exercise of jurisdiction do not always render a judgment void)