State v. Breeze, 2016 Ohio 1457

Craig Breeze was convicted after a 1991 jury trial of multiple counts including four aggravated murders; sentenced in January 1992 to consecutive life and other prison terms. The written judgment entry imposed court costs but the oral sentencing did not mention a specific amount.
Breeze filed numerous postconviction motions (beginning in 2000 and repeatedly through 2015) arguing costs were improperly imposed and that garnishment of his prison wages was impermissible retroactive application because the wage-garnishment statute was enacted in 1994.
The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denied Breeze’s motions on multiple occasions (decisions in 2000, 2012, 2013, 2015); Breeze appealed only the October 14, 2015 denial.
Breeze argued (1) costs were not lawfully imposed under R.C. 2947.23, (2) retroactive application of the 1994 statutory garnishment violated federal and state constitutions, and (3) the court failed to follow statutory procedures for collecting costs under R.C. 2949.14.
The appellate court considered whether res judicata barred Breeze’s latest challenge, noting many of the facts relevant to the costs issue were part of the original record and that prior denials were not timely appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Breeze may relitigate the propriety of imposition and collection of court costs	State: prior rulings denying relief are binding; costs were properly imposed and collection procedures are authorized	Breeze: costs were not lawfully imposed; wage garnishment is retroactive and unlawful because statutory authority post-dates conviction	Held: Res judicata bars the claims; prior opportunities to litigate or appeal existed, so the motion is barred
Whether retroactive application of the 1994 wage-garnishment statute violates constitutional protections	State: garnishment enforcement after statute enactment is lawful	Breeze: applying post-1994 statute to his sentence is impermissibly retroactive	Held: Even if substantive, this claim is barred by res judicata because Breeze could have litigated earlier and failed to timely appeal
Whether trial court erred by not waiving or specifying costs at sentencing	State: written judgment entry imposed costs; prior rulings resolved issue	Breeze: oral sentence omitted costs and judgment entry was insufficient or improper	Held: Issue was or could have been raised on direct appeal; res judicata applies
Whether trial court failed to follow statutory collection procedures	State: collection procedures applied; court consistently denied motions	Breeze: statutory provisions for collection were not followed	Held: Claim is precluded by prior litigation and failure to appeal earlier determinations

Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (explains claim and issue preclusion principles under Ohio law)
Whitehead v. Gen. Tel. Co., 20 Ohio St.2d 108 (1969) (discusses estoppel by judgment and finality of judgments)
Norwood v. McDonald, 142 Ohio St. 299 (1943) (establishes that final judgment on merits bars subsequent action on same claim)
Goodson v. McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 2 Ohio St.3d 193 (1983) (sets due-process prerequisite for collateral estoppel: identical issue actually litigated and essential to prior judgment)
Brooks v. Kelly, 144 Ohio St.3d 322 (2015) (applies res judicata to bar claims in subsequent proceedings that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)