State v. Smith, 2015 Ohio 3612

Kevin J. Smith was convicted of felonious assault and robbery in 2004 and resentenced in 2006 to nine years imprisonment; the trial court also ordered a 919-day sentence for violating postrelease control (PRC) from an earlier case.
The 919-day sanction derived from PRC imposed in a prior case was later found void because the original sentencing entry did not include mandatory PRC notification.
The trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry on July 30, 2014, purporting to notify Smith of three years of mandatory PRC for the 2004 convictions and to correct the record.
Smith had completed his nine-year prison term by September 2013; the nunc pro tunc PRC entry was issued after he was released.
Smith challenged the July 30, 2014 entry; the Sixth District reopened the appeal and addressed whether the court had jurisdiction to impose PRC after Smith completed his sentence.

Issue	Smith's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Can a trial court add or correct postrelease control after defendant has fully served the prison term?	Trial court cannot impose PRC after sentence completed; nunc pro tunc cannot create jurisdiction.	Trial court may correct omissions via nunc pro tunc to reflect that PRC was orally imposed at sentencing.	Court held trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose PRC after Smith served his sentence; the July 30, 2014 PRC sanction is vacated.
Was the 919-day sentence for violating prior PRC valid?	It was void because original sentencing entry failed to notify of PRC.	State conceded the PRC was improperly imposed and agreed to vacate the 919-day sentence.	The 919-day sentence was vacated earlier; issue rendered moot for resentencing purposes.
May a nunc pro tunc entry be used to impose PRC when it was not imposed at the sentencing hearing?	Nunc pro tunc cannot be used to impose or expand sentence after jurisdiction ends.	Nunc pro tunc may correct clerical omissions to reflect what occurred at sentencing.	Because the defendant had completed his term before the nunc pro tunc was issued, the court could not invoke nunc pro tunc to impose PRC.
Was resentencing for consecutive terms affected by Foster?	Consecutive terms previously imposed were invalid under Foster, requiring resentencing.	State accepted remand for proper resentencing.	Prior consecutive-sentence error under Foster required resentencing, which led to the 2006 hearing at issue.

State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (2013) (trial court loses jurisdiction to resentence to impose postrelease control after defendant has served entire term)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (certain statutory sentencing provisions unconstitutional, affecting consecutive-sentence imposition)