[Cite as State v. Fischer , 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . F ISCHER , A PPELLANT

. [Cite as State v. Fischer , 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238.] Criminal law — Sentencing — Postrele ase control — Sentences that do not include statutorily mandated term of postrelease control are void — Such sentences are not precluded from appella te review by principles of res judicata, including doctrine of the law of the case — They may be reviewed at any time, on direct appeal or by collateral attack. (No. 2009-0897 — Submitted March 30, 2010 — Decided December 23, 2010.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 24406, 181 Ohio App.3d 758, 2009-Ohio-1491.

__________________ S YLLABUS OF THE C OURT 1. A sentence that does not include the statutorily mandated term of postrelease control is void, is not precluded from appe llate review by principles of res judicata, and may be reviewed at any time, on direct appeal or by
collateral attack. 2. The new sentencing hearing to which an offender is entitled under State v. Bezak is limited to proper imposition of postrelease control. ( State v. Bezak , 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961, syllabus, modified.) 3. Although the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the de termination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 4. The scope of an appeal from a resenten cing hearing in which a mandatory term of postrelease control is imposed is limited to issues arising at the resentencing hearing.

__________________ O’C ONNOR , J. {¶ 1} In this appeal, we again addr ess questions arising from a sentencing court’s failure to impose postrelease control as mandated by the General Assembly. A sentence that doe s not include the statutorily mandated term of postrelease control is void, is not precluded from appellate review by principles of res judicata, and may be reviewed at any time, on direct appeal or by collateral attack. Although the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the dete rmination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence. Relevant Background {¶ 2} In 2002, a judge sentenced appellant, Londen K. Fischer, to an aggregate term of 14 years’ imprisonm ent for aggravated robbery, felonious assault, having a weapon while under di sability, and two counts of aggravated burglary, all with firearms specifications. A timely direct appeal followed, and
his convictions were affirmed by the court of appeals. State v. Fischer , SummitApp. No. 20988, 2003-Ohio-95, 2003 WL 118470 (rejecting sufficiency-of-theevidence claims and Batson challenges). {¶ 3} Several years later, Fischer su ccessfully moved pro se for resentencing after this court issued its decision in State v. Bezak , 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961 (holding that a sentence that omits a statutorily mandated postrelease term is void) because he had not been properly advised of his postrelease-c ontrol obligations. Thereaft er, the trial court properlyJanuary Term, 2010

3 notified Fischer of those oblig ations and reimposed the re mainder of the sentence. Fischer appealed. {¶ 4} On appeal, he asserted that because his original sentence was void, his first direct appeal was “not valid” and that this appeal is in fact “his first direct appeal” in which he may raise any and all issues relating to his conviction. State
v. Fischer , 181 Ohio App.3d 758, 2009-Ohio-1491, 910 N.E.2d 1083, ¶ 4 and 5. The court of appeals rejected his claim, holding that the appeal was precluded by the law-of-the-case doctrine. Id. at ¶ 7-8. {¶ 5} We granted discretionary review of a single proposition arising from the appeal: whether a direct appeal from a resentencing ordered pursuant to State v. Bezak is a first appeal as of right. State v. Fischer , 123 Ohio St.3d 1410, 2009 -Ohio-5031, 914 N.E.2d 206. We hold that it is not. Analysis
I {¶ 6} We begin with simple premises. “In general, a void judgment is one that has been imposed by a court that lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or the authority to act. State v. Payne , 114 Ohio St.3d 502, 2007-Ohio4642, 873 N.E.2d 306, ¶ 27. Unlike a void judgment, a voidable judgment is one rendered by a court that has both jurisdic tion and authority to act, but the court’s judgment is invalid, irre gular, or erroneous.” State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568, at ¶ 12. But those statements of law have sparked a recurrent and increasingly divisi ve debate in our case law on sentences that fail to properly impose postrelease control in accordance with the terms mandated by the General Assembly. {¶ 7} The crux of our debate arises from the fact that in the normal course, sentencing errors are not jurisdic tional and do not render a judgment void. State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 449-450, 674 N.E.2d 1383; Majoros v. Collins (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 Rather, void sentences are typically those in which a court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the defendant. Payne. {¶ 8} But in the modern era, Ohio law has consistently recognized a narrow, and imperative, exception to that general rule: a sentence that is not in accordance with statutorily mandated terms is void. See, e.g., Simpkins, at ¶ 14; State v. Bezak , 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961; State v.
Jordan , 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-6085, 817 N.E.2d 864; State v. Beasley (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 74, 75, 14 OBR 511, 471 N.E.2d 774; Colegrove v. Burns (1964), 175 Ohio St. 437, 25 O.O.2d 447, 195 N.E.2d 811. See also Woods v.
Telb (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 504, 733 N.E.2d 1103. {¶ 9} Although our case law on void judgments was rooted in cases in which courts lacked subject-matter ju risdiction, it evolved beyond those roots over the years. By the time we decided Beasley, it had developed into the principle that “[a]ny attempt by a court to disregard statutory requirements * * * renders the attempted sentence a nullity or void.” Id., 14 Ohio St.3d at 75, 14 OBR 511, 471 N.E.2d 774. And although Beasley may be recognized more for the principle that jeopardy does not att ach to a void sentence, and thus the correction of a void sentence would not constitute double jeopardy, id., its underlying principles governing void sent ences formed the basis for our holding
in Jordan , a postrelease-control case. {¶ 10} In Jordan, we recognized that “[t]he court’s duty to include a notice to the offender about postrelease cont rol at the sentencing hearing is the same as any other statutorily mandated term of a sentence. And based on the reasoning in Beasley , a trial court’s failure to notify an offender at the sentencing hearing about postrelease control is error.” Jordan
, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004- Ohio-6085, 817 N.E.2d 864, at ¶ 26. We held that “[b]ecause a trial court has a statutory duty to provide notice of postrel ease control at the sentencing hearing, any sentence imposed without such notificati on is contrary to law. As a generalJanuary Term, 2010

5 rule, if an appellate court determines that a sent ence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, it may remand for re sentencing. See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Furthermore, where a sentence is void be cause it does not contain a statutorily mandated term, the proper remedy is, likewise, to resentence the defendant. State v. Beasley (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 74, 14 OBR 511, 471 N.E.2d 774.” (Footnote omitted.) Jordan at ¶ 23. We then vacated the entire sentence and remanded for resentencing. Id. at ¶ 28. {¶ 11} Three years after Jordan , we issued our decision in Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961. Bezak is significant in that it was the most divisive decision by the cour t in the contexts of void and voidable judgments and nonconforming pos trelease-control sentences. {¶ 12} There, a majority held that when a court of appeals remands a case for resentencing because of the trial court’s failure to inform the offender at the sentencing hearing that he may be subject to postrelease control, the court must conduct a new sentencing hearing in its entirety rather than a hearing limited to reimposing the original sentence with prope r notice of postrelease control. Id. at ¶ 6. In so holding, the majority in Bezak indicated that it found Jordan dispositive. Id. at ¶ 12. But the majority also relied heavily on Romito v. Maxwell (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 266, 267-268, 39 O.O.2d 414, 227 N.E.2d 223, for the proposition that the effect of a void judgment is that the judgment is a nullity, and the parties are in the same position as if there had been no judgment. Bezak at ¶ 12-13. {¶ 13} Romito , a habeas case from 1967, was in many ways inapposite to Bezak . Romito was a habeas petitioner and recidivist offender who had been convicted of armed robbery and repeated instances of burglary between 1941 and 1957. All of those offenses led to impris onment, as well as an indictment as a habitual criminal, to which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 15 years, “that being the statutory maximum for his la st prior conviction for burglary.” Romito at 266. The habitual-criminal enhancement wa s declared void, however, and he thenS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 sought habeas relief and release from confinement on the underlying burglary sentence, which he asserted had also been voided. Id. Although Romito remained in custody lawfully under a prio r valid sentence for other offenses, the court agreed that “[t]he vacation of the prior burglary sentence in the instant case was an integral part of the habitual criminal proceedings, and when such habitual criminal proceedings were declared void the vacation of the burglary sentence was also voided.” Id., 10 Ohio St.2d at 267-268, 39 O.O.2d 414, 227 N.E.2d 223. {¶ 14} The court in Romito supported that conclusion by relying on Tari
v. State (1927), 117 Ohio St. 481, 159 N.E. 594, and Hill v. Hill (1945), 299 Ky. 351, 185 S.W.2d 245. Though different from each other, both Tari and Hill presented quintessential juri sdictional questions. Thus, Romito represents the historic, narrow view of void judgments, which is limited to the class of cases in which jurisdiction, rather than statutory sentencing mandates, is implicated. See
State v. Holcomb , 184 Ohio App.3d 577, 2009-Ohio-3187, 921 N.E.2d 1077, ¶ 4- 7 (noting early Ohio Supreme Court cases treating sentences that did not conform to mandatory prison terms as voidable rather than void). {¶ 15} Based on the language from Romito , the majority in Bezak rejected the appellate court’s ruling that the sentence in Bezak should be remanded to the trial court so that the defendant “ ‘may be advised that he is subject to post-release
control.’ ” Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961, at ¶ 13, quoting State v. Bezak, Cuyahoga App. No. 84008, 2004-Ohio-6623, ¶ 41. In doing so, it quoted and applied the language from Romito and held that the effect of vacating the sentence was to position the parties in the same place as if there
had been no sentence. Id. at ¶ 12. {¶ 16} That conclusion required the majority to distinguish the decision in
State v. Saxon , 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, which holds that a sentencing hearing on remand is limited to the issue found to be in error on the appeal. Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. To do so, the majorityJanuary Term, 2010

7 narrowly read Saxon to apply only to multiple-offense cases and not to defendants such as Bezak, who had been convicted of only one offense. Yet the majority still applied Romito , a far more complicated case than Saxon , and one that arose from multiple convictions for multiple offenses . Id. at ¶ 13. Notwithstanding that analytical inconsistency, the majority in Bezak then summarily concluded, “Therefore, Bezak’s entire sentence wa s vacated upon the court of appeals’ decision to sustain his one assignment of error.” Id. It dispensed with any applicability of Saxon to the issue presented in Bezak. Nor did it consider cases or
doctrines that reflected the rationales at issue in Saxon

. {¶ 17} As the first dissenting opinion in Bezak observed, “[j]ust as Saxon held that a complete resentencing is not required when a defendant on appeal prevails on a challenge only as to one offense in a multiple-offense case, a complete de novo resentencing is not requi red when a defendant prevails only as to the postrelease-control asp ect of a particular sentence. In this situation, the postrelease-control component of the sentence is fully capable of being separated
from the rest of the sentence as an independent component, and the limitedresentencing must cover only the postrelease control. It is only the postreleasecontrol aspect of the sentence that is void and that must be rectified. The remainder of the sentence, which the de fendant did not successfully challenge, remains valid under the principl es of res judicata. See Saxon [109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824], at ¶ 17-19.” Bezak , 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961, at ¶ 21-22 (O’Connor, J., dissenting, joined by Lundberg Stratton, J.). See also id. at ¶ 31 (Lanzinger, J., dissenting) (“I believe this holding [in Bezak ] undermines the principles of res judicata that we discussed in [ Saxon ]”). {¶ 18} Although neither the majority nor the dissents in Bezak discussed it at the time, the scope of the remand in Bezak was a critical aspect of voidS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

8 judgments. And so it is at this juncture that we revisit that law before proceeding
further.
II {¶ 19} As described at the outset of our analysis, our debate over whether the failure of a sentencing judge to comply with a statutory mandate renders the ensuing judgment void arises from our disagreement over the narrow, historic view that limits void judgments to cases in which the court acts without jurisdiction. See generally Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568, at ¶ 42-43 (Lanzinger, J., dissenting). {¶ 20} But in the modern era, in whic h we have a more sophisticated understanding of individual rights, we ha ve not so severely limited the notion of void judgments to only those judgments that arise from jurisdictional cases. See,

e.g., State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, ¶ 103- 104. The historic, narrow view does not adequately address the constitutional infirmities of a sentence imposed without statutory authority. {¶ 21} The majority’s decision to include sentences that disregard legislatively imposed mandates within a na rrow class of void judgments reflects a fundamental understanding of constitutional democracy: judges are not imperial. We recognize that our authority to sentence in criminal cases is limited by the people through the Ohio Constitution and by our legislators through the Revised
Code. {¶ 22} Judges have no inherent power to create sentences. Griffin & Katz, Ohio Felony Sentencing Law (2008) 4, Section 1:3, fn. 1. See also Woods
v. Telb , 89 Ohio St.3d at 507-509, 733 N.E.2d 1103 (describing the legislative intent behind a new, comprehensive sent encing structure, including postrelease control). Rather, judges are duty-bound to apply sentencing laws as they are
written. See State v. Thomas (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 510, 512, 676 N.E.2d 903. “[T]he only sentence which a trial cour t may impose is that provided for byJanuary Term, 2010

9 statute. A court has no power to substitute a different sentence for that provided for by statute or one that is either greate r or lesser than that provided for by law.” Colegrove , 175 Ohio St. at 438, 25 O.O.2d 447, 195 N.E.2d 811. The failure to impose a statutorily mandated period of postrelease control is more than administrative or clerical error. It is an act that lacks both statutory and constitutional authority. {¶ 23} No court has the authority to impose a sentence that is contrary to
law. Colegrove , 175 Ohio St. at 438, 25 O.O.2d 447, 195 N.E.2d 811. We reaffirm that vital principle today and reiterate that a judge must conform to the General Assembly’s mandate in imposing pos trelease-control sanctions as part of a criminal sentence. Although the interest s in finality of a sentence are important, they cannot trump the interests of justi ce, which require a judge to follow the letter of the law in sentencing a defendant. {¶ 24} Other states’ courts hold similarly, using the voidness doctrine as well as a related theory, the illegal-sentence doctrine. 1 See, e.g., Summers v. State (Tenn.2007), 212 S.W.3d 251, 256 (describing a sentence imposed in direct contravention of a statute as illegal and subject to correction at any time); State v. Gayden (2006), 281 Kan. 290, 292-293, 130 P.3d 108 (“A sentence for which no statutory authority exists does not c onform to statutory provisions and is, therefore, within the defin ition of an illegal sentence”); Sullivan v. State (2006), 366 Ark. 183, 234 S.W.3d 285 (“Where the law does not authorize the particular sentence pronounced by a trial court, the sentence is unauthoriz ed and illegal”); Mizell v. State (Tex.Crim.App.2003), 119 S.W.3d 804, 806 (“A sentence that is outside the maximum or minimum range of punishment is unauthorized by law and therefore illegal”); United States v. Greatwalker (C.A.8, 2002), 285 F.3d 727,

1. The term “illegal” generally means “forbidden by law.” Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed.2009) 815. It accurately summarizes a judge’s action in fai ling to do what the General Assembly has commanded with respect to postrelease control.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

10 729 (“A sentence is illegal when it is not authorized by the judgment of conviction or when it is greater or less th an the permissible statutory penalty for the crime”). {¶ 25} “A motion to correct an illegal sentence ‘presupposes a valid conviction and may not, therefore, be used to challenge alleged errors in proceedings that occur prior to the imposition of sentence.’ ” Edwards v. State (1996), 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, quoting Allen v. United States (D.C.1985), 495 A.2d 1145, 1149. It is, however, an appropriate vehicle for raising the claim that a sentence is facially illegal at any time. Id. The scope of relief based on a rule, like Fe d.R.Crim.P. 35, is likewise constrained to the narrow function of correcting only the illegal sentence. It does not permit reexamination of all perceived errors at trial or in ot her proceedings prior to sentencing. See,

e.g., Hill v. United States (1962), 368 U.S. 424, 430, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417. {¶ 26} We similarly hold that when a judge fails to impose statutorily mandated postrelease control as part of a defendant’s sentence, that part of the
sentence is void and must be set aside. 2 Neither the Constitution nor common sense commands anything more. {¶ 27} This principle is an important part of the analysis of void sentences that we have not focused upon in prio r cases involving postrelease control, including Bezak , 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961. Thus, we reaffirm the portion of the syllabus in Bezak that states “[w]hen a defendant is convicted of or pleads guilty to one or more offenses and postrelease control is not properly included in a sentence for a particular offense, the sentence for that

2. The current version of Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) permits correction o f a sentence only for “clear error” within 14 days of sentencing. But the original version of the rule permitted correction of an illegal sentence “at any time,” and the prior version of the rule continued the law as it existed when the rule was adopted in 1944. See Advisory Commit tee Notes to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a).January Term, 2010

11 offense is void,” but with the added provi so that only the offending portion of the sentence is subject to review and correction. {¶ 28} However, we now modify the second sentence in the Bezak syllabus as ill-considered. That sentence states that the offender is entitled to a new sentencing hearing for the offens e for which postrelease control was not imposed properly. 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961. It does not recognize a principle that we overlooked in Bezak : when an appellate court concludes that a sentence imposed by a tria l court is in part void, only the portion that is void may be vacated or otherwise amended. {¶ 29} Therefore, we hold that the new sentencing hearing to which an
offender is entitled under Bezak is limited to proper imposition of postrelease control. In so holding, we come more into line with legislative provisions concerning appellate review of cr iminal sentences. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) permits an appellate cour t, upon finding that a sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, to remand for resentencing. But a remand is just one arrow in the quiver. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) also provides that an appellate court may “increase, reduce or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the
sentence and remand the matter to the se ntencing court for resentencing.” (Emphasis added.) Correcting a defect in a sentence without a remand is an option that has been used in Ohio and elsewhere for years in cases in which the original sentencing court, as here, ha d no sentencing discretion. See, e.g., State v.
Winters (July 22, 1982), Cuyahoga App. No. 427 99, 1982 WL 2499 

### , *3; State v. Coughlin , Ashtabula App. No. 2006-A-0026, 2007-Ohio-897; State v. Gimbrone
, Montgomery App. No. 23062, 2009-Ohio-6264; People v. Kelly (1965), 66 Ill.App.2d 204, 211, 214 N.E.2d 290; State v. Sheppard (A.D.1973), 125 N.J.Super. 332, 336, 310 A.2d 731; Harness v. State (2003), 352 Ark. 335, 339,
101 S.W.3d 235.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

12 {¶ 30} Correcting the defect without re manding for resentencing can provide an equitable, economical, and effi cient remedy for a void sentence. Here, we adopt that remedy in one narrow area: in cases in which a trial judge does not impose postrelease control in accordance with statutorily mandated terms. In such a case, the sentence is void. Principles of res judicata, including the doctrine of the law of the case, do not preclude appellate review. The sentence may be reviewed at any time, on direct appeal or by collateral attack. {¶ 31} Our decision today is limited to a discrete vein of cases: those in which a court does not properly impose a statutorily mandated period of postrelease control. In cases involving pos trelease control, we will continue to adhere to our narrow, disc rete line of cases addressing the unique problems that have arisen in the application of that la w and the underlying statute. In light of the General Assembly’s enactment of R. C. 2929.191, it is likely that our work in this regard is drawing to a close, at least for purposes of void sentences. Even if that is not the case, however, we would be ill-served by the approach advocated by the dissent, which is premised on an unpalatable and unpers uasive foundation.
III {¶ 32} With the law and scope of the question before us today now clarified, we turn to the specific question posed in this appeal, as reframed in our new language: is a direct appeal from a resentencing on a remand from an appeal finding that a sentence was void the “first” direct appeal as of right because the first appeal was a “nullity”? Like the court of appeals, we answer that question in the negative. {¶ 33} The court of appeals correctly ruled that Fischer, having already
had the benefit of one direct appeal, could not raise any and all claims of error in a second, successive appeal. 181 Oh io App.3d 758, 2009-Ohio-1491, 910 N.E.2d 1083. The court of appeals based its deci sion on the law-of-the-case doctrine, which provides that “the decision of a re viewing court in a case remains the lawJanuary Term, 2010

13 of that case on the legal questions involve d for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels.” Nolan v. Nolan (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 11 OBR 1, 462 N.E.2d 410. {¶ 34} Other state supreme courts have used the law-of-the-case doctrine in cases of illegal sentences. See, e.g., Brittingham v. State (Del.1998), 705 A.2d 577, 579. The doctrine retains its vitality in Ohio. In discussing the doctrine, we have held that it “precludes a litigant from attempting to rely on arguments at a retrial which were fully pursued, or availa ble to be pursued, in a first appeal” and noted that “[n]ew arguments are subjec t to issue preclusion, and are barred.”
Hubbard ex rel. Creed v. Sauline (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 402, 404-405, 659 N.E.2d
781. {¶ 35} The law-of-the-case doctrine is rooted in principles of res judicata and issue preclusion, and we have expressl y disfavored applying res judicata to
sentences that do not conform to stat utory postrelease-control mandates. Simpkins , 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568, ¶ 30. We also reject the application of issue preclusion to sentences that do not comply with statutory mandates, as those sentences are illegal and subject to collateral attack or direct appeal by any party. {¶ 36} But other than Bezak, the case law has thus far focused only on
whether a defendant is barred from raisin g claims about a void sentence rather than on the remedy therefor. We do not disturb that precedent. Instead, our decision today revisits only one component of the holding in Bezak , and we overrule only that portion of the syllabus that requires a complete resentencing hearing rather than a hearing restricted to the void portion of the sentence. In light of our holding, the court of appeals in this case correctly held that Fischer’s remaining claims, which did not involve a void sentence or judgment, were barred by res judicata.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

14 {¶ 37} In so holding, we reject Fischer’s claim that there was no final, appealable order in this case. {¶ 38} Fischer’s theory is that because the trial court did not properly apply postrelease-control sancti ons, his sentence was void under Bezak . Because his sentence was void, he contends, there was no sentence, and without a sentence, no conviction and no final order. See State v. Whitfield , 124 Ohio St.3d 319, 2010-Ohio-2, 922 N.E.2d 182 (“a ‘convicti on’ consists of a guilty verdict
and the imposition of a sentence or penalty” [emphasis sic]); State v. Baker , 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, syllabus (to be a final, appealable order, a judgment of convi ction must include the sentence). In Fischer’s view, the absence of a convi ction means the absence of a final, appealable order, and the absence of such an order deprived the court of appeals of its jurisdiction over the initial appeal, thereby rendering that appeal invalid. The argument, though creative, fails. {¶ 39} Nothing in Baker discusses void or voidable sentences. Rather, the syllabus speaks only to the requirement th at the judgment of conviction set forth “the sentence” in addition to the other necessary aspects of the judgment. The judgment in this case did set forth the sentence. The fact that the sentence was illegal does not deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction to consider and correct the error. In fact, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) expressly authorizes a reviewing court to modify or vacate any sentence that is “contrary to law.” Clearly, no such authority could exist if an unlawful se ntence rendered a judgment nonfinal and unappealable. Thus, Baker does not avail Fischer.
IV {¶ 40} Our intention today is to provide a clear, simple, and more workable solution to a vexing issue without compromising the interests of fairness. In balancing those interests he re, we have carefully considered the law
in a combined effort to craft the most e quitable solution. We therefore hold thatJanuary Term, 2010

15 void sentences are not precluded from appe llate review by principles of res judicata and may be reviewed at any time, on direct appeal or by collateral attack. We further hold that although the doctri ne of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the de termination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence. The scope of an appeal from a resentencing hearing in which a mandatory term of postrelease control is imposed is limited to issues arising at the resentencing hearing. Judgment affirmed.
P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , and C UPP , JJ., concur.
L ANZINGER , J., dissents.
B ROWN , C.J., not participating.

__________________ L ANZINGER , J., dissenting. {¶ 41} I respectfully dissent from today’s decision and its limitation of a defendant’s right to appeal after obtaining resentencing of a “void” sentence. Unless we were to frankly overrule the ab errant cases on void sentences, I would accept the appellant’s proposition of law and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. {¶ 42} The majority holds that void se ntences are “not precluded from appellate review by principl es of res judicata and may be reviewed at any time, on direct appeal or by collateral attack.” But it holds further that “[a]lthough the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence.” In other words, a sentence that is “void” because of an error in imposing postrelease control is now only “partially void.”S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

16 {¶ 43} Consequently, an appeal may be taken of any postrelease-control error at any time, but apparently the court of appeals is to correct only the erroneous portion of the sentence, rath er than conduct a de novo sentencing hearing. This holding effectively overrule s the second sentence of the syllabus in State v. Bezak , 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961. 3 {¶ 44} I respectfully dissent because I believe that it would be more sensible for us to completely abandon Bezak and its progeny and instead hold that these errors are correctable on direct app eal within the usual time for appellate review. This approach honors Ohio lega l precedent, promotes judicial economy,
and treats both the state and de fendants equally and fairly. I. The Majority Has Redefined the Term “Void” {¶ 45} Before the line of cases starting a mere three years ago with Bezak
, this court repeatedly held that sentenci ng errors are nonjurisdictional and that these errors are properly corrected on appeal. See State ex rel. Shackleford v.
Moore , 116 Ohio St.3d 310, 2007-Ohio-6462, 878 N.E.2d 1035, ¶ 5; Childers v. Wingard (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 427, 428, 700 N.E.2d 588; Majoros v. Collins (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 442, 443, 596 N.E.2d 1038; Blackburn v. Jago (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 139, 529 N.E.2d 929. A sentence is not “void ab initio” if a mistake was made during its imposition; it is voidable. “Void” and “voidable” are fundamental legal terms. In 2007, we set fo rth clear definitions of those terms in State v. Payne , 114 Ohio St.3d 502, 2007-Ohio-4642, 873 N.E. 2d 306, ¶ 27. 4

3. Notably, this also overrules paragraph one of the syllabus in last year’s decision in State v. Singleton , 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, 920 N.E.2d 958 (“For criminal sentences imposed prior to July 11, 2006, in which a trial court failed to properly impose postrelease control, trial courts shall conduct a de novo sentenci ng hearing in accordance with decisions of the Supreme Court of Ohio”).
4. Although the majority cites State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, ¶ 103, as an example of this court using the term “void” in reference to judgments containing nonjurisdictional errors, both the majority and concurring opinions in Payne corrected this mistake. See Payne , at ¶ 27-30, and at ¶ 32-35 (Lanzinger, J., concurring).January Term, 2010

17 {¶ 46} Within the past year, a unanimous United States Supreme Court also had no trouble in defining the term “void”: “A void judgment is a legal nullity. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1822 (3d ed.1933); see also id ., at 1709 (9th ed.2009). Although the term ‘void’ descri bes a result, rather than the conditions that render a judgment unenforceable, it suffices to say that a void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final. S ee Restatement (Second) of Judgments 22 (1980); see generally id ., §12.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa (2010), __ U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 1367, 1377, 176 L.Ed.2d 158. The court’s opinion
continues: “ ‘ A judgment is not void,’ for example, ‘simply because it is or may
have been erroneous .’ ” (Emphasis added.) Id., quoting Hoult v. Hoult (C.A.1, 1995), 57 F.3d 1, 6. {¶ 47} Redefinition of the term “void” to include sentences containing errors in postrelease control is an entirely unnecessary reaction to the consequences of the “modern era” 5 cases relied on in the majority opinion. According to these recent cases, a sentence is void, i.e., a nullity, and everything that occurs after the sentence is also a nullity, until a valid sentencing occurs. See State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568, ¶ 14-21. Logically, then, the void-sentence doctr ine should allow defendants to pursue a second direct appeal after a resentencing, si nce the resentencing is the first “valid”

sentence. {¶ 48} A more troublesome part of the majority’s holding is that although the sentence remains “void,” a defendan t will not receive the benefit of the

5. The earliest of these cases, State v. Beasley (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 74, 14 OBR 511, 471 N.E.2d 774, summarily held a sentence imposing less than a mandatory minimum to be void. State v. Jordan , 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-6085, 817 N.E.2d 864, the first postrelease-control case, was decided in 2004.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

18 resentencing mandated by R.C. 2929.19, wh ich protects defendants’ due process rights. 6 II. Sentencing Errors Are Correctable on Direct Appeal {¶ 49} An approach that deems certain sentences “illegal” or “partially void” is ill-suited for Ohio law. A close reading of cases from other jurisdictions cited in the majority opinion reveals that the cited cases arise from a variety of factual circumstances and procedural postures far removed from a judge’s error in imposing postrelease control. Many of th ese jurisdictions rely upon statutes or rules that give their courts the power to review erroneous or “illegal” sentences at any time. The majority’s approach has been rejected by the federal courts, which now correct sentencing errors with the method used by Ohio prior to Bezak

. {¶ 50} More than two decades ago, language was eliminated from the federal rules that allowed courts to correct an “illegal sentence” at any time. P.L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 2015. Fed.R.Crim.P. 35( a) now provides, “Within 14 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear erro r.” However, if a federal sentencing error is not
correctable under this rule or under Fed.R.Cr im.P. 36 as a clerical error, it may be corrected only on direct appeal or, in limited cases, by a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2255, Title 28, U. S.Code. See generally United States v. Collins (Apr. 26, 2010), N.D.Ill. No. 04 CR 709, 2010 WL 1727852. Rather than follow

6. R.C. 2929.19(A) states, “ The court shall hold a sentencing hearing before imposing a sentence under this chapter upon an offender who was convicted of or pleaded guilty to a felony and before resentencing an offender * * *. At the hearing, the offender, the prosecuting attorney, the victim or the victim's representative * * * and, with the approval of the court, any other person may present information relevant to the imposition of sentence in the case. The court shall inform the offender of the verdict of the jury or finding of the court and ask the offender whether the offender has anything to say as to why sentence should not be imposed upon the offender.” (Emphasis added.)January Term, 2010

19 a system rejected by the federal courts, it would be more “palatable” to follow the current federal system that has been in place since 1987. 7 {¶ 51} Ohio’s rules and statutes curren tly do not allow for correction of sentences “at any time.” Thus, sentencing errors must be corrected on direct appeal. Indeed, this method is consiste nt with the statute governing appellate review of sentences. R.C. 2953.08(G) does allow appellate cour ts a number of options to correct sentences that fail to comply with statutory requirements. But that statute also properly limits these options so that courts may exercise them only on direct appeal . This ensures finality in sentencing while still allowing for the correction of any errors as part of an appeal as of right, either by the defendant
or the state. III. A Return to Historical Distinctions Will Promote Justice and Finality {¶ 52} It is time to return to the hist oric, narrow, and accurate view of void judgments as being those re ndered without jurisdiction. See Ex parte
Winslow (1915), 91 Ohio St. 328, 330, 110 N.E. 539 (if a court did not act under a statute, the sentence was err oneous and voidable, not void); Stahl v. Currey (1939), 135 Ohio St. 253, 14 O.O. 112, 20 N.E.2d 529 (jail sentence imposed by a magistrate who is not statutorily authorized to impose such a sentence is not void, but only voidable, because the magistrate did not wholly lack jurisdiction to impose a sentence); Carmelo v. Maxwell (1962), 173 Ohio St. 569, 570, 20 O.O.2d 170, 184 N.E.2d 405 (a sentence imposed contrary to the terms of a statute is not void). Limiting the term “void” to cases in which a court acts without jurisdiction is a deeply rooted c oncept in this court’s decisions and was

7. See United States v. Terzado-Madruga (C.A.11, 1990), 897 F.2d 1099, 1123 (“The effective date of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub.L. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837, 1987 (1984) was set out in Sec. 235(a)(1), which provided for the Act to take effect on November 1, 1987. Pub.L. 98-473, Title II, Ch. II, Sec. 235(a)(1), October 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2031, as amended by Section 4 of Pub.L. 99-217, December 26, 1985, 99 Stat. 1728”).S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

20 the law of Ohio in regard to sentencing errors as recently as 2007. This approach — not a repackaging of the void-sentence doctrine — honors Ohio precedent. {¶ 53} The real question here is: “What is the proper remedy when a judge makes a sentencing mistake?” Our sentencing statutes recognize the possibility that a judge may err in sentencing by allowing parties 30 days to appeal sentences on grounds that they are contrary to law. 8 Allowing for challenges to sentencing error on direct appeal gives the state and the defense ample opportunity to draw attention to any potential postrelease-control error, thus satisfying any constitutional concerns arising from an imperfect sentence. Licensed attorneys should be competent to perform their duties during a sentencing hearing, and it is not unreas onable for prosecutors and defense counsel to review the judgment issued in a case to ensure that the sentence complies with
Ohio law. This approach is the pragmatic a pproach—equitable, economical, and efficient. Most importantly, it is the approach contained in Ohio’s sentencing scheme, which provides for direct appeal by either party in a criminal case. See
R.C. 2953.08. {¶ 54} The majority has essentially elevated postrelease-control mistakes to the level of “super-error” to allow untimely challenges to parts of the sentence that could very easily be brought on di rect appeal and corrected as other sentencing errors are. While it is critical that sentences comply with statutory mandates, any concern over mistakes omitting mandatory postrelease control could easily be obviated if all prosecuto rs and defense attorneys attended the sentencing hearings and reviewed the sentencing entries in their cases. {¶ 55} The General Assembly has created a prospective remedy for the problem of postrelease-control notif ication by enacting R.C. 2929.191, but

8. R.C. 2953.08(B)(2) provides prosecutors with an appeal as a matter of right in felony cases on grounds that the sentence is contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) provides defendants with the same right to appeal.January Term, 2010

21 according to our holdings in State v. Singleton , 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio6434, 920 N.E.2d 958, the rules announced today apply to sentences imposed before July 11, 2006. {¶ 56} It is hoped that this decision today is truly limited to a discrete vein
of cases: those “in which a court does not properly impose a statutorily mandated period of postrelease control,” in other wo rds, only those cases in which the state has not obtained a mandatory monitoring period in addition to a defendant’s prison sentence. My fear is that the br oad language in the majority opinion has the potential to apply to other statutory mandates, creating othe r “void” sentences that may be infinitely appealable, and then modified without a full rehearing under R.C. 2929.19(A).
IV. Conclusion {¶ 57} We can easily correct the problems arising from the void-sentence doctrine by simply clarifying that mistakes in imposing sentences make the sentence merely voidable, that is, subject to being reversed on direct appeal. I therefore respectfully dissent.

__________________ Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Heaven DiMartino, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defend er, and Claire R. Cahoon, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Kelly R. Curtis, urging reversal fo r amicus curiae Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. Robert L. Tobik, Cuyahoga County P ublic Defender, and John T. Martin, Assistant Public Defender, urging reve rsal for amicus curiae Cuyahoga County
Public Defender.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

22 Mathias J. Heck Jr., Montgomery C ounty Prosecuting Attorney, and Carly J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.

______________________