In State v. Price, 9th Dist. No. 07CA0025, 2008 Ohio 1774, the defendant filed a motion for resentencing after his direct appeal. The defendant's motion alleged that the trial court failed to advise him of his postrelease control obligations at sentencing. The Court concluded that his motion was properly classified as a petition for postconviction relief and was subject to the corresponding jurisdictional requirements: "A motion that is not filed pursuant to a specific rule of criminal procedure 'must be categorized by the court in order for the court to know the criteria by which the motion should be judged.' 'Where a criminal defendant, subsequent to his or her direct appeal, files a motion seeking vacation or correction of his or her sentence on the basis that his or her constitutional rights have been violated, such a motion is a petition for postconviction relief as defined in R.C. 2953.21.' "Despite its caption, Mr. Price's motion for resentencing meets the definition of a petition for postconviction relief under Section 2953.21(A)(1) of the Ohio Revised Code. Mr. Price filed it subsequent to his direct appeal, claimed a denial of his constitutional rights, asked for a vacation of his sentence, and sought recognition that the trial court's judgment is void. Mr. Price's motion did not indicate that it was an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2725.04 or meet the requirements of that section." Price, 2008 Ohio 1774, at P4-5.