State v. Trammell, 2016 Ohio 1317

In 2012 Trammell was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary (first-degree felony) in Stark C.P. No. 2012CR1221 and sentenced to 10 years; an RVO specification was given no time. He later pled guilty to possession of cocaine (fifth-degree felony) in 2012CR1265 and was sentenced to 6 months with up to three years discretionary post-release control, concurrent with the burglary sentence.
Trammell directly appealed his burglary conviction; this court affirmed in 2013. He did not appeal the cocaine conviction.
In June 2015 Trammell filed pro se motions in both cases (a “motion for sentencing” in 2012CR1221 and a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in 2012CR1265), challenging post-release control, alleged failure to notify under R.C. 2943.032, and asserting improper or increased resentencing.
The trial court denied both pro se motions in July 2015. Trammell appealed the denial, raising two assignments of error about post-release control/resentencing and whether the court improperly increased punishment.
The Fifth District affirmed: it rejected the post-release control claim in 2012CR1265, found the R.C. 2943.032/plea-colloquy argument untimely and not subject to Fischer relief, and concluded no improper resentencing occurred as to the 2012CR1221 judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court failed to properly impose post-release control in 2012CR1265	Trammell: post-release control was improperly imposed or not properly notified	State: sentence and post-release control were properly imposed and reflected in the entry	Denied — court found post-release control properly imposed; plea-notification claim governed plea colloquy and untimely for Fischer relief
Whether trial court failed to assess whether Trammell had already completed prison terms when "resentencing" 2012CR1221	Trammell: court improperly "resentenced" him and should have checked time served before adding/clarifying post-release control	State: no resentencing occurred; sentencing entry finalized the sentence and events were part of original sentencing	Denied — no resentencing occurred (clarification before final journal entry); Holdcroft inapplicable
Whether trial court increased an originally imposed sentence on resentencing	Trammell: resentencing increased penalty beyond original sentence	State: sentence remained within statutory range and was finalized in the journal entry	Denied — sentence within statutory range; res judicata bars collateral attack on settled direct-appeal issues

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (a sentence that omits statutorily mandated post-release control is void and may be reviewed at any time)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (Ohio 2013) (trial court cannot resentence a defendant to add post-release control after the prison term for that offense has been served)