State v. Smith, 2011 Ohio 5986

Smith was re-sentenced in 2010 on two burglary counts and one receiving stolen property count to add post-release control (PRC).
Original May 2005 sentence: five years (count1), eight years (count2), and eleven months (count4) with concurrent service; PRC described as mandatory up to 3 years for some counts.
During re-sentencing in 2010, the court orally re-imposed the same terms and described PRC as mandatory on count2 and optional on counts1 and4.
A September 29, 2010 nunc pro tunc entry purported to fix clerical errors, specifying sentences as five years on count1 and eight years on count2, aligning with the oral re-sentencing.
The appellate court held the nunc pro tunc entry void for lack of jurisdiction due to appeal processing, and remanded to correct the clerical error and limit PRC to count2 only.
The court sustained Smith’s first and third assignments of error and remanded for correction of the clerical error and proper PRC imposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PRC could be imposed on counts already completed.	Smith argues PRC could not be added to completed sentences.	State contends PRC could be imposed as described in re-sentencing.	ISSUE 1 sustained; PRC limited to count2.
Whether the finding of an “attempt or threat with a weapon” was properly supported.	Smith challenged the accuracy of the finding.	State relies on the trial court’s prior finding.	ISSUE 2 overruled (res judicata governs); finding upheld but limited by res judicata.
Whether the eight-year term for third-degree burglary was proper.	Smith argues error in an eight-year term due to clerical issue.	State argues the sentence should stand per re-sentencing record.	ISSUE 3 sustained; remand to correct clerical error and re-impose five years on count1 and eight years on count2.

State v. Ward, 187 Ohio App.3d 384 (Ohio App. 2nd Dist. 2010) (nunc pro tunc correction void when appeal filed; lack of jurisdiction to fix during appeal)