State v. Draughon, 2014 Ohio 1460

Defendant-appellant Mickey L. Draughon was convicted in 1997 on multiple counts including rape with a sexually violent predator (SVP) specification, with sentence enhanced accordingly.
The conviction and SVP specification were affirmed on direct appeal, and prior postconviction attempts were denied.
Draughon II (2012) held Smith does not retroactively apply to closed cases, and the trial court could base SVP enhancement on conduct in the indictment.
On January 22, 2013 Draughon filed a Motion for Resentence, arguing his sentence enhancement lacked proper qualifying prior conviction and statutory authority.
The trial court denied the motion as duplicative; the Court of Appeals held that res judicata barred review and affirmed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars review of Draughon’s resentencing motion	Draughon argues res judicata does not apply	Appellee argues already litigated and decided in Draughon II	Yes, barred by res judicata
Whether Smith should be retroactively applied to Draughon’s case	Draughon asserts Smith requires retroactive application	Smith does not apply retroactively to closed cases	No retroactive application; Draughon II controls
Whether the SVP sentence enhancement lacked statutory authority	Draughon argues lack of qualifying prior conviction supports void enhancement	Enhancement proper based on indictment conduct	barred by res judicata; no vacatur of sentence required

State v. Draughon, 2012-Ohio-1917 (10th Dist. 2012) (Smith does not retroactively apply to closed cases; enhancement based on indictment conduct valid)
State v. Smith, 104 Ohio St.3d 106 (2004-Ohio-6238) (interpreting R.C. 2971.01; nonretroactive)
State v. Wooden, 2002-Ohio-7363 (10th Dist. 2002) (res judicata bars repeated attacks on final judgments)
State v. Bankston, 2013-Ohio-4346 (10th Dist. 2013) (postconviction relief standard; mixed law/fact review)