State v. Stiggers, 2011 Ohio 4225

In 1997, Stiggers was convicted of two counts of attempted murder, two counts of felonious assault, and one count of aggravated robbery.
In 2007, Stiggers sought resentencing due to an invalid post-release control notification, and the court issued a nunc pro tunc entry imposing post-release control.
On March 26, 2010, Stiggers filed a motion to vacate his void sentence; the State conceded the sentence was void and urged Fischer guidance.
A resentencing hearing occurred on June 16, 2010; both parties requested a lesser term for good behavior or a greater term for lack of remorse.
The trial court sentenced Stiggers to a longer term and imposed five years of mandatory post-release control.
On appeal, the court held that the trial court exceeded its authority by de novo resentencing; the post-release control portion remained valid and the rest was vacated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had authority to modify the sentence beyond post-release control	Stiggers: court lacked authority to do more than post-release control.	State: resentencing nevertheless permissible to correct control issues.	Issue sustained; only post-release control valid; remainder nullified.

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (invalid post-release control does not taint the entire sentence; correction limited to post-release control)
State v. Cool, 9th Dist Nos. 25135 & 25214 (2011-Ohio-1560) (resentencing limited to post-release control; de novo sentencing is a nullity)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (guidance on void sentences and post-release control)