State v. Dyson
2021 Ohio 4466
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- In 2009 Dyson was indicted on two counts of first‑degree rape involving an 11‑year‑old; he pled guilty to one count on April 23, 2009 and the other count was dismissed.
- The trial court sentenced Dyson to imprisonment of "ten years to life" and classified him as a Tier‑III sex offender.
- Dyson previously moved to dismiss for delay; that motion was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal.
- On May 18, 2021 Dyson filed a motion to vacate his sentence, claiming the sentence was void because the court omitted statutorily mandated terms, applied improper enhancements, and mischaracterized parole eligibility.
- The trial court denied the motion; Dyson appealed the denial. The Ninth District affirmed, concluding the sentence was not void and the challenge was barred by res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dyson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying Dyson's motion to void his sentence as facially invalid | Sentence is "void" because required statutory terms were omitted, improper enhancements were applied, and the court imposed a mandatory 10‑year term rather than "life with possibility of parole after 10 years" | Trial court had subject‑matter and personal jurisdiction; any sentencing error would be voidable not void; Dyson failed to raise these claims on direct appeal so res judicata bars collateral attack | Affirmed. Because the court had jurisdiction the sentence was at most voidable; res judicata bars collateral attack absent a direct appeal, so the motion was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480 (Ohio 2020) (clarified that errors within a court’s jurisdiction render sentences voidable rather than void)
- State v. Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285 (Ohio 2020) (sentences that omit statutorily mandated terms are voidable when court has jurisdiction; res judicata applies)
- State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (Ohio 2007) (distinction between void and voidable judgments)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (doctrine of res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2004) (when action falls within a court’s subject‑matter jurisdiction, errors are generally voidable)