State v. Saturday, 92 N.E.3d 287

Nicholas A. Saturday was sentenced in Ashtabula C.P. for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and given five years of mandatory post-release control (PRC).
While on PRC he was convicted in Summit C.P. of identity fraud against a disabled person and telecommunications harassment; he served those sentences and is currently incarcerated solely on a 1,215‑day judicial‑sanction sentence imposed for the PRC violation.
Saturday moved in Summit C.P. to vacate the judicial‑sanction sentence, arguing the Ashtabula sentencing entry failed to properly notify him of PRC consequences and thus the PRC (and the Summit sanction based on it) is void.
The Summit trial court denied the motion by (1) treating it as an untimely petition for post‑conviction relief and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction to reach the merits, and (2) alternatively finding the Ashtabula sentencing entry incorporated a signed “Notice (Prison Imposed)” form that did set out PRC consequences.
On appeal the Ninth District affirmed: it held it lacked jurisdiction to declare the Ashtabula judgment void, and that Saturday’s filing was untimely under the post‑conviction statute and did not satisfy the statutory exceptions.

Issue	Saturday's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Ashtabula PRC (and Summit judicial sanction based on it) is void because the Ashtabula entry omitted PRC violation consequences	The Ashtabula entry did not list PRC violation consequences, so PRC is void and Summit’s judicial sanction—predicated on that PRC—is void	The Ashtabula entry incorporated a contemporaneously filed, signed "Notice (Prison Imposed)" that notified Saturday of PRC consequences; Summit’s sanction valid	Court declined to adjudicate voidness here: Ninth Dist. lacks jurisdiction to review Ashtabula judgment and there is no record that Ashtabula court declared its PRC void
Whether the trial court erred by reclassifying the motion as an untimely petition for post‑conviction relief and denying it on statutory timeliness grounds	The motion sought resentencing for a void sentence and should not be subject to post‑conviction time bars (court should vacate void sentence regardless of procedure)	The motion was filed beyond R.C. 2953.21 deadline and did not satisfy R.C. 2953.23 exceptions, so the trial court correctly treated it as untimely and lacked authority to reach merits	Court held the motion was untimely under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) (filed after 365 days) and did not meet the statutory exceptions; denial affirmed

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (a sentence that omits statutorily mandated PRC is void and reviewable at any time)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (2013) (a court’s failure to properly impose PRC renders the PRC sanction void)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (trial court must provide statutorily compliant PRC notification at sentencing; focus is on the notification given at hearing)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate courts may vacate or modify felony sentences only upon clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support statutory findings or sentence is contrary to law)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Jackson, 149 Ohio St.3d 55 (2016) (only one document may constitute a final appealable order; Crim.R. 32(C) requirements)
State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (discussion of what constitutes a final appealable order)