State v. Russell, 2016 Ohio 3349

Kenneth Russell was indicted in 2002 for multiple cocaine-trafficking counts and participating in a criminal gang; he pleaded guilty in 2003 to one gang count and three trafficking counts under a plea agreement.
The court held a combined plea-and-sentencing hearing on May 6, 2003 and sentenced Russell to concurrent terms totaling eight years in prison.
At the combined hearing the court orally informed Russell he would be subject to five years of post-release control and described potential reimprisonment consequences; Russell acknowledged understanding. The written plea form and judgment entry also referenced post-release control.
Over 12 years later (Oct. 14, 2015) Russell moved for resentencing, arguing post-release control was not properly imposed and thus must be terminated now that he completed his sentence.
The trial court denied the motion (Jan. 15, 2016), finding Russell had been properly notified of post-release control; Russell appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is void for lacking proper post-release control notice	State: Trial court properly notified Russell orally, in the plea form, and in the judgment entry, satisfying statutory requirements	Russell: Post-release control was not properly imposed (argues inadequate notice), so the post-release control portion is void and must be terminated/resentenced	Court: Affirmed — under the totality of the circumstances (oral colloquy at combined plea/sentencing, signed plea form, judgment entry), Russell was adequately notified and sentence is not void in part

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (recognizes that lack of proper post-release-control notice renders that portion of sentence void)
State v. Billiter, 134 Ohio St.3d 103 (void-sentence rule for improper post-release-control notice applies)
State v. Schleiger, 141 Ohio St.3d 67 (procedures for correcting improper post-release-control imposition on post-July 11, 2006 sentences)