State v. Singleton, 2017 Ohio 7265

Bryan K. Singleton was convicted (1997) of aggravated murder (unclassified) and several classified felonies (aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, weapon-under-disability, firearm specification) and sentenced to consecutive prison terms.
The trial court’s 1997 termination entry and the sentencing hearing stated Singleton would be subject to "up to five years" of post-release control for the classified felonies.
Singleton, proceeding pro se, filed an August 2016 motion for resentencing, arguing the trial court failed to properly impose the mandatory five-year post-release control term, rendering that portion of the sentence void.
The trial court denied the motion as barred by res judicata, finding the sentencing entry sufficiently imposed post-release control and noting Singleton did not raise it on direct appeal.
The State argued the court need not use the word "mandatory" and that the sentencing entry and hearing sufficiently imposed five years of post-release control.
The Second District disagreed, finding the "up to five years" phrasing voids the post-release control portion when the statute mandates five years, and ordered remand for resentencing limited to proper imposition of post-release control for unresolved classified offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Singleton)	Held
Whether the trial court properly imposed a mandatory five-year period of post-release control	The court properly informed Singleton at sentencing and in the entry that he would serve up to five years; the term need not be labeled "mandatory"	Use of "up to five years" is inadequate where the statute mandates five years; that language renders the post-release control portion void	Court held the "up to five years" language voided the post-release control term and required resentencing limited to imposing post-release control correctly
Whether res judicata bars the claim	The State contended the issue should have been raised earlier on direct appeal	Singleton argued the sentence portion is void and can be challenged any time	Court held res judicata did not apply because a void sentence may be challenged at any time

State v. Qualls, 967 N.E.2d 718 (Ohio 2012) (nunc pro tunc correction permitted where court properly advised defendant at sentencing)
State v. Clark, 893 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio 2008) (post-release control does not apply to unclassified felonies such as aggravated murder)
State v. Holdcroft, 1 N.E.3d 382 (Ohio 2013) (court cannot impose post-release control for an offense after the defendant has completed that offense's sentence)