State v. Shepherd, 2021 Ohio 507

Shepherd pled guilty in January 2009 to aggravated robbery and kidnapping (both first‑degree felonies).
The January 21, 2009 journal entry states Shepherd was advised of 5 years postrelease control; the January 23, 2009 entry imposed a seven‑year aggregate sentence and states 5 years postrelease control is part of the sentence.
Shepherd served the sentence and was released in 2015.
Shepherd filed successive pro se motions to vacate postrelease control in December 2019 and January 2020.
The trial court denied both motions on January 16, 2020; Shepherd appealed that denial.
The appellate court affirmed, holding Shepherd’s motions are barred by res judicata because he did not raise the issue on direct appeal when sentenced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shepherd may collaterally attack the imposition of 5 years postrelease control after failing to appeal his 2009 sentence	State: Harper requires such claims be raised on direct appeal; collateral attacks are barred by res judicata	Shepherd: postrelease control was improperly imposed and should be vacated despite no prior direct appeal	Court: Denied relief; applying Harper and Perry, res judicata bars collateral challenge because Shepherd could have raised the claim on direct appeal

State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480 (holding sentencing errors in postrelease control render sentences voidable and must be challenged on direct appeal; res judicata applies to collateral attacks)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (establishing doctrine of res judicata bars collateral litigation of claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)