State v. Tanksley, 2016 Ohio 2963

James M. Tanksley pled guilty in 2001 to aggravated robbery (felony 1) and was sentenced to three years in prison; the sentencing entry stated post-release control was "mandatory up to a maximum of five years."
Tanksley was released in 2003 and, after a 2004 murder conviction, the trial court imposed a five-year prison sanction for violating post-release control to be served before the murder sentence.
Tanksley completed the five-year sanction in 2009 and, in 2015, moved to vacate that sanction as void because the original sentencing entry used improper "up to" language for mandatory post-release control.
The trial court denied the motion; Tanksley appealed, arguing the defective sentencing entry rendered the post-release control and any subsequent sanction void.
The Second District presumed the sentencing hearing itself was regular (no transcript provided) but found the journal entry’s "up to" language rendered the post-release control provision void and uncorrectable by nunc pro tunc because Tanksley had completed the underlying sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing entry’s language "mandatory up to a maximum of five years" rendered the post-release control term void and thus made the later sanction for violation invalid	State: Entry gave sufficient notice and treatment under Watkins and related precedent; the sanction should stand	Tanksley: "Up to" wording wrongly suggests discretion and makes post-release control (and sanctions for its violation) void; completed underlying sentence precludes correction	Court: The "up to" language rendered the post-release control provision void; because Tanksley already completed his prison term, the court could not correct the journal entry and the five-year sanction was vacated

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 942 N.E.2d 332 (2010) (failure to impose statutorily mandated post-release control renders that part of sentence void)
State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200, 909 N.E.2d 1254 (2009) (without proper sentencing entry imposing post-release control, parole board cannot enforce it)
State v. Billiter, 134 Ohio St.3d 103, 980 N.E.2d 960 (2012) (sentencing entry using discretionary language for mandatory post-release control renders sentence void; subsequent convictions based on that invalid sanction are void)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 967 N.E.2d 718 (2012) (distinguishes when nunc pro tunc correction or resentencing is appropriate depending on whether defendant completed the underlying term)
State v. Lynch, 134 Ohio St.3d 561, 983 N.E.2d 1314 (2012) (addresses interplay of Watkins and later decisions on improper "up to" language and limits on post-hoc corrections)
Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425, 857 N.E.2d 78 (2006) (held certain journal entries provided sufficient notice to authorize post-release control in habeas context; later Supreme Court decisions limited its applicability)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 817 N.E.2d 864 (2004) (remedy for void sentence often is resentencing)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526, 1 N.E.3d 382 (2013) (void-judgment principles; res judicata remains for merits unaffected by void portions)