State v. Whitted, 2012 Ohio 1695

Whitted was indicted for harassment with a bodily substance and two counts of vandalism; he pled guilty under a plea agreement that the State would stand silent on sentencing.
At sentencing on December 29, 2010, the trial court imposed a 36-month prison term but did not advise Whitted about post-release control consequences.
Whitted was sentenced again on January 4, 2011 with a journal entry indicating post-release control but without proper advisement in the entry.
The January 2011 judgment referenced post-release control as a later consideration, but failed to describe the consequences or notification requirements.
The State conceded the sentencing court failed to properly inform Whitted of post-release control, triggering the R.C. 2929.191 correction mechanism under Singleton.
The court ultimately held that Whitted’s sentence must be remanded for a limited resentencing hearing and a corrected judgment entry under R.C. 2929.191(C).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly informed about post-release control consequences.	State contends the court failed to notify as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(3)(e)	Whitted argues the omission invalidates the sentence and requires resentence	Meritorious; remanded for limited resentencing and corrected entry

State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009) (requires post-release control procedures via 2929.191 when not properly imposed)
State v. Minite, 8th Dist. No. 95699, 2011-Ohio-3585 (Ohio App. 8th Dist., 2011) (cannot be corrected by journal entry alone; requires hearing for proper notice)
State v. Adams, 2012-Ohio-432 (Ohio App. 7th Dist., 2012) (distinguishes Davis vs. pre/post dates for correction of post-release control)
State v. Davis, 2011-Ohio-6025 (Ohio App. 7th Dist., 2011) (distinguishable; supports need for correction of sentencing entry when applicable)