State v. Smith, 2012 Ohio 5965

In 2004, Smith was convicted by guilty plea of drug possession and by juries for aggravated robbery and felonious assault; direct appeals affirmed.
Smith filed multiple postconviction motions from 2010 to 2012 challenging his sentence and postrelease-control notification.
The trial court overruled these postconviction motions; Smith appeals challenging the postconviction rulings and the Foster-based arguments.
The court concluded postconviction statutes (R.C. 2953.21 et seq.) did not confer jurisdiction to review these late motions.
The sentencing records inadequately notified Smith about postrelease control for each offense, rendering portions of the sentences void.
Court remanded for resentencing to correct postrelease-control notification; otherwise, affirmed the judgment as modified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the September 2010 motion was reviewable postconviction relief.	Smith sought resentencing due to void sentences from defective postrelease-control notice.	State maintained lack of jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.21 et seq. for late postconviction petitions.	Postconviction statutes lacked jurisdiction to review merits; however, voidness due to inadequate notification required remand for resentencing.
Whether the December 2010 motion under Foster and related claims was properly addressed.	Smith asserted systemic postrelease-control errors and due process/federal-right challenges to sentencing.	State argued no jurisdiction and that Foster-related claims did not entitle relief under postconviction standards.	Postconviction review declined for merits due to jurisdictional limits; but sentencing defects regarding postrelease control necessitated correction on remand.

State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (2009-Ohio-2462) (postrelease-control notification must be proper and incorporated in entry)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (sentence void if postrelease-control term not properly set)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (sentence void where postrelease-control not properly imposed; reviewable on direct appeal or collateral attack)
State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010-Ohio-3831) (mandatory notice of postrelease consequences per offense and consequences of violations)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004-Ohio-6085) (mandatory postrelease-control notification requirements)
State v. Pruitt, 125 Ohio St.3d 402 (2010-Ohio-1808) (judgment language regarding postrelease control can guide appeals but is not cure-all)
State v. Billiter, Ohio St.3d _ (2012-Ohio-5144) (Watkins progeny apply to non-writ collateral challenges to postrelease-control errors)