State v. Beal, 2014 Ohio 3834

Beal was convicted in 2007 by jury of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification; sentence was nine years for the armed robbery plus three years for the firearm specification to be served consecutively.
Beal's direct appeal affirmed the conviction; subsequent proceedings challenged the judgment entry for not stating the manner of conviction.
In 2010 Beal moved to vacate judgment; the trial court did not rule, prompting Beal to seek mandamus, which led to a resentencing proceeding.
The trial court issued a revised judgment entry (Oct. 28, 2010) stating the manner of conviction (jury trial) and clarifying the three-year firearm specification.
Beal appealed Beal II, challenging the handling fee related to restitution, which the court modified; issues related to the firearm specification length were resolved in Beal II.
In 2013 Beal filed motions for relief from judgment and to vacate void judgment; the trial court denied them as barred by prior appellate resolutions and res judicata.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether resentencing after service of the firearm term was proper	Beal argued the sentence was served and resentencing violated Bezak.	Beal contends lack of jurisdiction and wrong length for the firearm spec.	Resentencing proper; not barred by Bezak; specs serve under underlying sentence
Whether jury instruction errors from 2007 survive res judicata	Beal asserts improper jury instructions at trial.	Beal’s argument was previously addressed and rejected; res judicata applies.	Issues barred by res judicata; no lapse in finality

State v. Beal, 2011-Ohio-6699 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. (Beal II)) (modified judgment; handling fee; res judicata implications)
State v. Beal, 2008-Ohio-4007 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. (Beal I)) (direct appeal affirmed conviction)