State v. Harper

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that when a sentencing court has subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, errors in imposing postrelease control render the sentence voidable, not void, and must be challenged on direct appeal or are barred by res judicata. The failure to include in the sentencing entry notice of the consequences of violating postrelease control under R.C. 2967.28 does not void that portion of the sentence. Prior cases holding that such failures rendered the postrelease-control portion void are overruled.

Holdings

1. When a sentencing court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person, any error in the exercise of that jurisdiction in imposing postrelease control renders the sentence voidable, not void, and the sentence may be set aside only if successfully challenged on direct appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Does the failure to include in a sentencing entry the consequences of violating postrelease control, as required by Grimes, render the sentence void and subject to collateral attack at any time?

Disposition

reversed