In State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 2006 Ohio 5795, 856 N.E.2d 263, the Ohio Supreme Court considered a trial court's authority to correct a sentence that failed to provide notification of post release control. The Supreme Court stated there were two exceptions to the general rule that a trial court lacks authority to reconsider its own final judgment in a criminal case. "First, a trial court is authorized to correct a void sentence." 111 Ohio St. 3d 353, 2006 Ohio 5795, at P19, 856 N.E.2d 263. "Second, a trial court can correct clerical errors in judgments. Although courts possess inherent authority to correct clerical errors in judgment entries so that the record speaks the truth, 'nunc pro tunc entries "are limited in proper use to reflecting what the court actually decided, not what the court might or should have decided."Id. The Supreme Court justified the trial court's correction of its prior sentencing entry under the first exception, on the grounds that an offender's sentence is void where the sentencing court fails to comply with the statutory requirements. Id.