State v. Gilmore, 2012 Ohio 2216

Gilmore was charged in four cases in 2007; after a bench trial in CR-498813, he was convicted of failure to comply with police and weapon under disability, with gun specs, and acquitted in the other three charges.
Gilmore pleaded guilty in the remaining three cases; on August 25, 2008, he received a combined nine-year prison sentence across all four cases.
This court affirmed the convictions in Gilmore I; the Ohio Supreme Court denied jurisdiction.
Gilmore filed a motion in the trial court to vacate void and illegal judgment and sentence, arguing the CR-498813 sentence was void for inadequate firearm-spec findings and that postrelease-control advisement was improper in the pleas.
The trial court denied the motion, ruling the advisement and findings were proper and that res judicata barred reconsideration.
On appeal, Gilmore contends the sentence is void, thus not barred by res judicata, but the court concludes res judicata applies and the motion is barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars review of a void-sentence claim.	Gilmore argues void sentence permits review outside res judicata.	State contends res judicata bars claims not raised on direct appeal.	Barred; res judicata applies to the arguments raised.
Whether the sentence in CR-498813 was void for inadequate findings to determine firearm penalties.	Gilmore claims insufficient trial findings mandated voidness.	No voidness shown due to lack of transcripts; regularity presumed.	Insufficient record; presumption of regularity controls; not void.
Whether the trial court properly advised on postrelease control at pleas and sentencing.	Gilmore contends inadequate postrelease-control advisement invalidates pleas.	Record is insufficient; regular advisement presumed.	Barred by res judicata; issue could have been raised on direct appeal.
Whether the lack of trial/plea transcripts prevents review of the postrelease-control issues.	Gilmore asserts lack of transcripts undermines review.	In absence of transcripts, court presumes proper proceedings.	Presumption of regularity applies; review denied.
Whether the motion to vacate constitutes a withdrawal of guilty pleas barred by res judicata.	Gilmore framed motion as plea-withdrawal due to void sentence.	Issues should have been raised on direct appeal; barred.	Barred; Fountain-like rationale supports res judicata application.

State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1967) (final convictions trigger res judicata effects on other issues)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006) (finality and final judgments; res judicata aims at efficiency)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010) (void-sentence review limited; res judicata applies to merits)
State v. McGee, 8th Dist. No. 91638 (2009) (void sentences defined; regularity presumed without transcripts)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1980) (presumption of regularity and review standards for hearings)