State v. Bullitt, 2022 Ohio 1591

In Aug. 2012 Bullitt was indicted on felony drug-trafficking, drug-possession, possessing criminal tools, and tampering with evidence; Counts 1–2 included major-drug-offender specifications.
A jury convicted Bullitt on all counts and the trial court sentenced him to 11 years’ imprisonment; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
Bullitt filed multiple postconviction and mandamus challenges over several years; those petitions were denied or dismissed.
In Mar. 2021 Bullitt moved to vacate his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred by letting the jury decide the major-drug-offender specifications (he contended the statute required a judge to decide them).
The trial court denied the motion as barred by res judicata; Bullitt appealed the denial.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the judgment was voidable (not void) because the trial court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction; therefore the claim was forfeited and must have been raised on direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying Bullitt's postconviction motion alleging the jury (not the judge) improperly decided major-drug-offender specifications	The State: motion barred by res judicata because any error was in a voidable judgment and had to be raised on direct appeal	Bullitt: jury was not authorized to decide the specifications; allowing the jury violated due process, equal protection, and a fair-trial right, so conviction/sentence is void	Court: Affirmed. Trial court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction so any error was voidable, not void; claim forfeited and barred by res judicata — must be raised on direct appeal

State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997) (defines when a postconviction filing constitutes a petition to render a judgment void and seek vacation)
State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399, 639 N.E.2d 67 (1994) (postconviction relief is a collateral civil attack, not an appeal)
State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 131 N.E.3d 1 (2020) (errors in exercise of jurisdiction render judgment voidable, requiring direct appeal to attack)
State v. Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285, 162 N.E.3d 776 (2020) (judgment is void only when court lacked subject-matter or personal jurisdiction; otherwise voidable and subject to forfeiture)
State v. Apanovitch, 155 Ohio St.3d 358, 121 N.E.3d 351 (2018) (subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo in postconviction contexts)
Tari v. State, 117 Ohio St. 481, 159 N.E. 594 (1927) (explains how personal jurisdiction is acquired in criminal matters)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967) (res judicata bars collateral attacks on claims that could have been raised earlier)