State v. Holmes, 2016 Ohio 4608

Norman Holmes was convicted of robbery in 2011; this court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal in 2012.
In 2015 Holmes filed a "Motion for Re-Sentencing Based on Void Judgment," arguing the trial court had failed to comply with statutory notice requirements regarding community service for nonpayment of court costs (R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) as then written).
Holmes also raised, in his appellate briefing, an ineffective-assistance claim concerning trial counsel’s handling of court costs, and a separate argument that the costs imposition violated R.C. 2929.19(B)(6).
The Hamilton County Common Pleas Court overruled Holmes’s 2015 motion; Holmes appealed that overruling to this court.
The First District held it lacked jurisdiction to review the common pleas court’s order overruling the 2015 motion and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this court has jurisdiction to review the denial of Holmes’s motion for resentencing based on alleged failure to give statutorily required notice about community-service-for-nonpayment-of-costs	Holmes: trial court failed to give required R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) notice, so resentencing is required	State: motion was not filed as a timely direct appeal or a proper postconviction petition; error is statutory, not constitutional; the sentence is not void	Court: No jurisdiction; appeal dismissed
Whether this court may review collateral claims about imposition of costs or counsel’s ineffectiveness via the motion or as claims attacking a void judgment	Holmes: imposition of costs and counsel’s ineffectiveness render judgment void or otherwise reviewable	State: those issues were not raised in the motion below, are statutory (not constitutional), and even if shown would not render the conviction/judgment void	Court: No — those claims are not reviewable here and would not make the judgment void

State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 856 N.E.2d 263 (Ohio 2006) (scope of court authority to correct void judgments)
State v. Schlee, 882 N.E.2d 431 (Ohio 2008) (trial court may recast pro se filings to identify proper procedural vehicle)
State v. Powell, 629 N.E.2d 13 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (postconviction relief requires demonstration of constitutional infringement)