State v. Hill, 2020 Ohio 3271

Curtis Hill pleaded guilty in 2002 to aggravated robbery and two counts of kidnapping with accompanying firearm specifications and was sentenced to lengthy prison terms; the judgment noted that postrelease control (PRC) applied.
On direct appeal Hill’s convictions and the voluntariness of his pleas were upheld; the appellate court remanded only for correction of firearm specifications; Hill was resentenced and did not appeal the resentencing.
In 2018 Hill filed a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, arguing the trial court failed during the plea colloquy to advise him, as required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), that mandatory five‑year terms of PRC would be part of his sentences.
The common pleas court dismissed the Crim.R. 32.1 motion for lack of jurisdiction; Hill appealed that dismissal.
The appellate court affirmed, holding Hill’s PRC noncompliance claim was the type of claim that could have been raised on direct appeal and therefore was barred by res judicata, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion.
The court further explained that the trial court’s failure to inform Hill about PRC rendered the convictions voidable (not void) because the court had subject‑matter and personal jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion challenging Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) noncompliance about PRC is barred by res judicata when it could have been raised on direct appeal	State: Res judicata bars because the claim did or could have been raised on direct appeal	Hill: Plea was not knowing/voluntary because court failed to advise of mandatory PRC; motion to withdraw plea is proper	Held: Barred by res judicata; claim could have been raised on direct appeal, so dismissal affirmed
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the Crim.R. 32.1 motion or to vacate a plea- based conviction due to omission about PRC	State: Trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate a judgment already affirmed on direct appeal when the issue depends only on the trial record	Hill: Omission is jurisdictional/voiding error that permits collateral attack	Held: Trial court lacked jurisdiction; omission rendered the judgment voidable (not void), so it could not be collaterally vacated via Crim.R. 32.1 after affirmance

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (Ohio recognition of constitutional plea standards)
State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (trial court must advise defendant during plea colloquy about postrelease control)
State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010) (res judicata generally bars postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (trial court cannot vacate a judgment already affirmed on appeal)
State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d 1 (2011) (trial court may entertain a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion when the issue could not have been raised on direct appeal)
State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (courts always have jurisdiction to correct truly void judgments)