State ex rel. Gregley v. Friedman

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the denial of Duane Gregley’s petition for a writ of procedendo seeking resentencing concerning postrelease control. The court held that the petition was barred by res judicata, was moot because the postrelease-control order had been vacated, and lacked merit because an error involving postrelease control does not render the entire sentence void.

Holdings

1. Gregley's petition for a writ of procedendo was barred by res judicata because he had previously challenged both the failure to impose postrelease control and the later imposition of postrelease control through direct appeal and collateral proceedings.
2. The procedendo action was moot because the trial court had vacated the postrelease-control order after the court of appeals reversed it.
3. An error in imposing postrelease control does not render the entire sentence void; only the offending portion of the sentence is subject to review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Gregley's second petition for a writ of procedendo was barred by res judicata after he had previously challenged the failure to impose and the later imposition of postrelease control.
2. Whether the procedendo action was moot after the trial court vacated the postrelease-control order.
3. Whether an error in imposing postrelease control rendered Gregley's entire sentence void or instead affected only the offending portion of the sentence.

Disposition

affirmed