State v. Harwell, 2020 Ohio 4845

In 2012 Harwell was indicted on multiple counts arising from a drug‑related incident: felony murder, attempted felony murder, kidnappings, felonious assault, and weapons under disability; most counts included three‑year firearm specifications.
After jury verdicts and merger of some counts, the trial court originally imposed an aggregate 32 years to life sentence; Harwell appealed.
This court vacated two attempted felony murder convictions under State v. Nolan and remanded for resentencing; the trial court resentenced Harwell in August 2015, again producing a 32‑year‑to‑life aggregate through consecutive/merged terms and two 3‑year firearm specs ordered consecutive to other terms.
Harwell filed multiple post‑judgment motions: a 2017 pro se resentencing/post‑release control challenge (denied and affirmed on appeal), a 2018 delayed motion for a new trial (denied and affirmed), and an August 2019 “Motion to Vacate Void Sentence” asserting the 2015 resentencing failed to follow R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
The trial court overruled the 2019 motion as barred by res judicata; Harwell appealed, raising (1) a due‑process/summary‑judgment argument, (2) entitlement to an evidentiary hearing, and (3) that the resentencing violated R.C. 2929.11/2929.12.
The appellate court affirmed, holding Harwell’s claims were barred by res judicata, no summary‑judgment ruling was entered by the trial court, and no evidentiary hearing was required to dispose of the res judicata bar.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Did the trial court grant summary judgment sua sponte in violation of due process?	State: No summary judgment was entered; the court simply denied the motion.	Harwell: Trial court effectively granted the State summary judgment without proper process.	Court: No summary judgment was filed or granted; Harwell’s claim lacks merit.
2. Was an evidentiary hearing required before denying Harwell’s Motion to Vacate Void Sentence?	State: No hearing required because the claims were barred by res judicata and could be resolved on the record.	Harwell: Court erred by denying relief without an evidentiary hearing.	Court: No hearing required; res judicata disposed of the claims on the merits.
3. Did the 2015 resentencing violate R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and render the sentence void?	State: Resentencing complied and any sentencing objections were or should have been raised on direct appeal.	Harwell: Trial court failed to follow sentencing statutes, making the sentence void and subject to vacation.	Court: Claims are barred by res judicata because they were or could have been raised on direct appeal; motion properly overruled.

State v. Nolan, 141 Ohio St.3d 454 (2014) (Ohio Supreme Court holding attempted felony murder is not a cognizable offense)
Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (explains the doctrine of res judicata barring subsequent claims arising from same transaction)
State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008) (explains that sentencing errors that render a sentence voidable are barred by res judicata if not raised on direct appeal)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (2007) (defendants with voidable sentences are entitled to resentencing only after a successful direct‑appeal challenge)