[Cite as State v. Ossman, 2011-Ohio-782.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

 LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : 

 : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

-vs- : 

 : Case No. 2010 CA 0062 

JEFFREY W. OSSMAN : 

 : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of 

Common Pleas, Case No. 02-CR-0016 

 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 10, 2011 

APPEARANCES: 

For Appellant: For Appellee: 

 

ROBERT C. BANNERMAN KENNETH W. OSWALT 

P.O. Box 77466 LICKING COUNTY PROSECUTOR 

Columbus, OH 43207-0098 

 BRIAN T. WALTZ 

 20 S. Second St., 4th Floor 

 Newark, OH 43055 

 
[Cite as State v. Ossman, 2011-Ohio-782.]

Delaney, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Jeffrey W. Ossman, appeals the June 2, 2010 nunc 

pro tunc sentencing entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} On or about January 22, 2002, Appellant was indicted on one count of 

Burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2), a felony of the second degree. The matter 

went to trial and a jury found Appellant guilty of the charge of Burglary. 

{¶3} On September 23, 2003, the trial court sentenced Appellant to seven 

years in prison. Appellant’s end of term was June 23, 2010. The trial court failed to 

advise Appellant that pursuant to R.C. 2967.28(B)(2), post release control in this case 

was mandatory for a period of three years. 

{¶4} Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence in State v. Ossman, 

Licking App. No. 03 CA 92, 2006-Ohio-720. This Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction 

and sentence. 

{¶5} On May 5, 2010, the Board of Sentence Computation notified the trial 

court that it did not state in the September 23, 2003 sentencing entry that Appellant was 

subject to a mandatory three-year term of post release control. On that same day, the 

State filed a motion requesting that the trial court resentence Appellant pursuant to R.C. 

2929.191. The trial court granted the motion and the matter was heard on June 2, 

2010. Appellant was appointed counsel to represent him at the hearing. At the hearing, 

Appellant asked if he was being resentenced pursuant to R.C. 2929.191. 

 

1

 The recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary for the disposition of this appeal. 
Licking County, Case No. 2010 CA 0062 3 

{¶6} The nunc pro tunc sentencing entry was filed on June 2, 2010. The trial 

court reimposed Appellant’s seven-year prison term. The trial court further notified 

Appellant that a three-year term of post release control was mandatory in this case. 

{¶7} It is from this decision Appellant now appeals. 

{¶8} Appellant raises two Assignments of Error: 

{¶9} “I. IMPOSITION OF POST-RELEASE CONTROL UPON APPELLANT IN 

ACCORDANCE WITH R.C. 2929.191 WAS IN VIOLATION OF OHIO LAW. 

{¶10} “II. APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF 

COUNSEL.” 

I. 

{¶11} Appellant argues in his first Assignment of Error that the trial court 

improperly resentenced Appellant pursuant to R.C. 2929.191. We disagree. 

{¶12} Appellant relies upon the holding in State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 

173, 2009-Ohio-6434, 920 N.E.2d 958, for the proposition that, “[f]or criminal sentences 

imposed prior to July 11, 2006, in which a trial court failed to properly impose post 

release control, trial courts shall conduct a de novo sentencing hearing in accordance 

with decisions of the Supreme Court of Ohio.” Id., paragraph one of syllabus. The 

Court went on to hold that for criminal sentences imposed on or after July 11, 2006, the 

trial courts shall apply the procedures set forth in R.C. 2929.191. Id., paragraph two of 

the syllabus. 

{¶13} Because Appellant was sentenced on September 23, 2003, Appellant 

argues that the trial court could not use the procedures set forth in R.C. 2929.191 when 

resentencing Appellant; i.e. the trial court could not conduct a limited resentencing 
Licking County, Case No. 2010 CA 0062 4 

hearing to add the missing post release control language. The trial court should have 

conducted a de novo sentencing hearing in accordance with the past decisions of the 

Ohio Supreme Court on the issue of post release control. 

{¶14} R.C. 2929.191, enacted as part of H.B. 137, provided a statutory remedy 

to correct the failure of the trial court to properly impose post release control. Singleton, 

¶ 23. The statute became effective on July 11, 2006 and in Singleton, the Court found 

that R.C. 2929.191 had no retrospective application. Id. at ¶ 26. 

{¶15} In Singleton, the Supreme Court cited State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 

2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961, as one of the progeny of cases that conferred the 

requirement of conducting a de novo sentencing hearing to correct a sentence that 

failed to properly impose post release control. Id. at ¶ 17. The Supreme Court recently 

examined State v. Bezak and limited its application in State v. Fischer, -- Ohio.St.3d --, 

2010-Ohio-6238, -- N.E.2d --, decided on December 23, 2010 while the instant appeal 

was pending before this Court. 

{¶16} In Fischer, the defendant was sentenced in 2002 and the sentencing entry 

failed to properly advise the defendant of his post release control obligations. The 

defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, which were affirmed by the court of 

appeals. The defendant moved for a resentencing hearing several years later based on 

the authority of Bezak. At the resentencing hearing, the trial court properly notified the 

defendant of his post release control obligations and reimposed the remainder of the 

sentence. The defendant appealed, asserting that his original sentence was “void,” so 

his first appeal was not valid and that the appeal of his resentencing was his “first 

appeal”; therefore, he could raise all issues relating to his conviction. The issue before 
Licking County, Case No. 2010 CA 0062 5 

the Court then was whether the defendant’s direct appeal of a resentencing ordered 

pursuant to State v. Bezak was a first appeal as of right. The Court found that it was 

not. Id. at ¶ 2-5. 

{¶17} The Court stated that in Bezak, the majority found that when a court of 

appeals remanded the case for resentencing due to the failure to inform the defendant 

of post release control, the trial court was required to conduct a new sentencing hearing 

in its entirety, rather than a hearing limited to reimposing the original sentence with 

proper notice of post release control. (Emphasis added). Fischer at ¶ 12. Fischer

overrules the Bezak requirement of a de novo sentencing hearing in paragraph two of 

the syllabus: “The new sentencing hearing to which an offender is entitled under State 

v. Bezak is limited to proper imposition of post release control.” 

{¶18} A review of the record in the present case shows that the trial court held a 

resentencing hearing on June 2, 2010 and his resentencing hearing was properly 

limited to the issue of Appellant’s post release control. We find the resentencing 

hearing to be in accordance with Fischer and therefore, no error occurred. 

{¶19} Appellant’s first Assignment of Error is overruled. 

II. 

{¶20} Appellant contends in his second Assignment of Error that the failure of 

Appellant’s trial counsel to object to the resentencing hearing as being conducted 

pursuant to R.C. 2929.191 demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel. 

{¶21} Based upon our holding in Appellant’s first Assignment of Error, we find 

the argument to be not well taken. 

{¶22} Appellant’s second Assignment of Error is overruled. 
Licking County, Case No. 2010 CA 0062 6 

{¶23} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

By: Delaney, J. 

Hoffman, P.J. and 

Farmer, J. concur. 

HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 

PAD:kgb 
[Cite as State v. Ossman, 2011-Ohio-782.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

JEFFREY W. OSSMAN : 

 : 

 : Case No. 2010 CA 0062 

 Defendant-Appellant : 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion on file, the judgment of the 

Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to Appellant. 

 

HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

HON. SHEILA G. FARMER