State v. Alexander, 2018 Ohio 1198

Defendant Calvin L. Alexander pleaded guilty at a single March 2015 hearing in two Cuyahoga County cases to multiple offenses (weapons-under-disability, drug trafficking with firearm specification, aggravated robbery, kidnapping) and was sentenced to an aggregate 12-year prison term.
Alexander did not file a direct appeal. He filed a pro se speedy-trial discharge motion (denied Sept. 2015) and later a pro se May 2017 motion to "nullify" the judgment entries, claiming the journal entries violated Crim.R. 32 and rendered his sentences void.
The trial court denied the May 2017 motion without a hearing. Alexander appealed, arguing the court erred by denying relief without appointing counsel and without explanation.
The appellate court construed the pro se motion as a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 and reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion.
The court found the petition untimely but considered the merits because an alleged void sentence may be addressed despite procedural default. It concluded the journal entries sufficiently set forth the fact of conviction and sentence and did not have to recite allocution or appellate advisements.
The court also held (1) no presentence investigation was required because Alexander received prison, not community control, and (2) there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in postconviction proceedings. The denial was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred denying the petition without appointing counsel	State: No constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel for postconviction petition	Alexander: Trial court should have appointed counsel before denying his pro se motion	Held: No right to appointed counsel in postconviction proceedings; denial without appointment not error
Whether judgment entries were fatally defective under Crim.R. 32(C)	State: Journal entries set forth plea and sentence; satisfy Crim.R. 32(C)	Alexander: Entries omit "fact of conviction," verdict, allocution, mitigation, and appellate-advice notations, so sentences are void	Held: Stating defendant pleaded guilty and setting sentence satisfies Crim.R. 32(C); entries not void
Whether the trial court had to memorialize allocution and appellate advisals in the journal entry	State: No rule requires those notifications to be reflected in the journal entry	Alexander: Lack of such statements in journal entries voids sentences	Held: Crim.R. 32(A)(1) and 32(B) need not be memorialized in the journal entry; no obligation to include them
Whether a presentence investigation was required and Apprendi issues arise	State: PSI required only for community control or probation; here prison sentence so no PSI needed	Alexander: Absence of PSI prevented consideration of community control and raises Apprendi concerns	Held: No PSI required for prison sentence; Apprendi argument inapplicable on these facts

State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 679 N.E.2d 1131 (postconviction relief petition characterization)
State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 860 N.E.2d 77 (standard of review and postconviction principles)
State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575, 906 N.E.2d 422 (courts must recognize and vacate void sentences)
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (when a hearing on postconviction petition is required)
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (no constitutional right to appointed counsel for postconviction relief)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (constitutional rule on facts increasing punishment)
State v. Crowder, 60 Ohio St.3d 151, 573 N.E.2d 652 (no right to appointed counsel in state postconviction proceedings)
State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 958 N.E.2d 142 (purpose of Crim.R. 32 to notify when final judgment is entered)
State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 893 N.E.2d 163 (plea notation satisfies "fact of conviction" requirement)