State v. Alexander, 2014 Ohio 2710

In 1992, Rickey Alexander was indicted for aggravated murder (with an R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) specification) and aggravated robbery (with a firearm specification) for a 1992 homicide.
A jury convicted Alexander in August 1993; the trial court imposed life with 30 years actual on aggravated murder, consecutive 10–25 years on aggravated robbery, plus 3 years on the firearm spec.
Alexander appealed; this court affirmed in 1996. He later filed various postconviction motions, including a delayed new-trial motion (denied) and, in 2013, a pro se "Motion to Vacate Void Judgment" challenging verdict forms and sentencing.
The trial court dismissed the 2013 motion as barred by res judicata without a hearing.
Alexander appealed, asserting: (1) verdict forms/entries were inadequate to support convictions; (2) jury forms omitted essential elements per State v. Pelfrey; and (3) consecutive sentences were unlawful.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of verdict forms (Pelfrey challenge)	Res judicata bars collateral attack; verdict forms were not previously raised on direct appeal and thus are precluded	Verdict forms failed to state degree or aggravating elements per R.C. 2945.75 and Pelfrey, so convictions are defective	Dismissal affirmed: res judicata bars the claim; court also noted no defect in the forms and that aggravated murder/robbery here did not present degree problems
Whether "prior calculation and design" element was required	State: Alexander was charged under R.C. 2903.01(B) (felony-murder type), which does not include "prior calculation and design," so the point is irrelevant	Alexander argued the state failed to prove "prior calculation and design" and that it was omitted from the verdict form	Court: Argument is groundless and barred by res judicata; the charged subsection did not include that element
Sentencing challenge to 10–25 year robbery term and consecutive sentences	State: Sentencing claims could have been raised on direct appeal and are barred by res judicata; sentence was within statutory range when imposed (pre-S.B. 2 scheme)	Alexander argued the consecutive/maximum indeterminate robbery sentence was contrary to law and an abuse of discretion	Court: Barred by res judicata; in any event sentence was lawful under the sentencing law in effect in 1993

State v. Pelfrey, 112 Ohio St.3d 422 (Ohio 2007) (verdict form must state degree or that aggravating element(s) found)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars collateral attack on issues raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (defendant who failed to raise available issues on direct appeal is precluded by res judicata)
State v. Davis, 119 Ohio St.3d 422 (Ohio 2008) (discussing scope of res judicata in postconviction context)