State v. Draughon, 2017 Ohio 7741

In 1997 Draughon was convicted of multiple felonies; the sentencing entry stated total court costs "are to be determined" and "the defendant shall not pay the total costs of this prosecution." A clerk's costs bill listed $458.30 in costs and marked the costs as suspended, leaving fines and costs due of $0. Draughon’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Over the years Draughon filed numerous postconviction motions. On December 22, 2016 he moved to waive or suspend court costs and sought resentencing, arguing the 1997 sentence did not comply with R.C. 2947.23 and thus was void.
The trial court denied the motion to vacate/resentence but issued an entry formally stating that court costs in the matter are suspended.
Draughon appealed, raising two assignments of error: (1) the trial court never properly suspended costs at sentencing and the later statement was insufficient; (2) the original sentencing failed to comply with R.C. 2947.23 (and Crim.R. 43(A)), rendering the sentence void.
The appellate court consolidated the issues, analyzed res judicata and void-judgment doctrine, and considered whether any error was harmful given that costs are suspended.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Draughon can challenge 1997 sentencing on court costs now	State: the judgment and clerk's costs bill reflect suspension; trial court retains power to suspend costs	Draughon: trial court failed to pronounce or enter costs at sentencing; subsequent notation inadequate; sentence void under R.C. 2947.23 and Crim.R. 43(A)	Court: barred by res judicata; even if error, costs were suspended and any error was harmless; judgment affirmed

State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (Ohio 2010) (distinguishes void-judgment exceptions to res judicata)
State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (Ohio 2008) (void-judgment exception to res judicata explained)
State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (Ohio 2010) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)