State v. Hughes, 2014 Ohio 2914

In 2005, Hughes was indicted on multiple offenses including aggravated burglary, kidnapping, attempted murder, felonious assault, protective-order violation, and menacing by stalking; a jury found some charges proven and others not.
He was resentenced in 2006 to comply with Foster; the sentence was affirmed in 2007.
In 2011 Hughes filed a Motion to Correct A Void Sentence based on merger principles after later Supreme Court decisions; the trial court denied and this court affirmed (Hughes III).
In 2013 Hughes filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging improper merger and challenges to R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a); the trial court denied as untimely and barred by res judicata.
On appeal Hughes argues multiple constitutional and retroactivity theories; the court addresses untimeliness and procedural bars first, noting the petition was untimely and that exceptions did not apply.
The appellate court ultimately overrules the untimeliness/jurisdictional objections, concluding that the petition should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and affirms the trial court's denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retroactivity of Johnson on collateral review	Hughes argues Johnson applies retroactively.	State contends no retroactive right arises; Johnson not retroactive.	Not retroactive; no new retroactive right recognized.
Constitutionality of R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) as applied	Ali/Ohio retroactivity concerns render statute unconstitutional.	State defends statute as constitutional and properly applied.	Constitutionality not decided due to untimeliness and other bars.
Res judicata effect on merger claims	Hughes argues merger issues can be revisited on collateral review.	State asserts res judicata bars merger claims not raised on direct appeal.	Merger claims barred by res judicata; relief denied on that basis.
timeliness of petition under R.C. 2953.21	Petition should be heard due to retroactivity theories.	Petition untimely under 2953.21; exceptions not shown.	Petition untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to entertain.
Effect of untimeliness on merits of petition	Untimeliness should not foreclose consideration where new law applies.	Untimeliness bars consideration regardless of new-law arguments.	Untimeliness and res judicata foreclose merits; ruling affirming denial.

State v. Cabrales, 118 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2008) (retroactivity and merger jurisprudence central to postconviction analysis)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (Johnson retroactivity analysis, merger considerations)