In Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425, 2006 Ohio 5082, 857 N.E.2d 78, the Ohio Supreme Court denied a writ of habeas corpus to compel the release of 12 petitioners who were in prison for violating the terms of their post-release control. Two of the petitioners, John Ivy and Joseph Ramey, were initially convicted and sentenced by the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court. The post-release control language that the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court included in petitioners Ivy's and Ramey's sentencing entries was identical to the post-release control language included in appellant's four sentencing entries. All 12 petitioners claimed that their sentencing entries failed to incorporate adequate notice of post-release control in their sentences. As a result, they challenged "the authority of the Adult Parole Authority to place them on post-release control and sanction them for violations of that control in the absence of appropriate language in their sentencing entries." Id. at P41. The supreme court found that the petitioners' sentencing entries contained sufficient language to authorize the Adult Parole Authority to exercise post-release control over the petitioners, and denied the writ. Id. at P53. The Court held that while the trial courts in the consolidated cases before it misstated the mandatory nature of the post-release control, the courts "did at least notify the petitioners that they could be subject to post-release control at their sentencing hearings." Id. at P46. The court held this, along with the fact the courts incorporated in their sentencing entries that the defendants were subject to post-release control, adequately afforded notice to a reasonable person that the courts were authorizing post-release control as part of each offender's sentence. In so holding, the court held, "this conclusion is consistent with the preeminent purpose of R.C. 2967.28 -- that offenders subject to post-release control know at sentencing that their liberty could continue to be restrained after serving their initial sentence." The Ohio Supreme Court held that the failure to inform a defendant of the mandatory nature of post-release control did not render the plea or sentence invalid. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case to this Court for consideration of the assignments of error previously found moot.