2020 Ohio 5154
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In May 2016, Obet Jennings pleaded guilty to one count of felony vandalism and was sentenced to six months in prison; the entry notified him of an optional 3-year post-release control period under R.C. 2929.19(B)(3).
- The sentence noted it could run concurrent with a prior PRC sanction from a Miami County case.
- Jennings did not file a direct appeal from the conviction or sentence.
- In December 2017 Jennings filed a motion to vacate post-release control and terminate supervision, asserting the PRC was not properly imposed.
- The trial court denied the motion; Jennings brought a collateral appeal from that denial to challenge the judgment of conviction.
- The Tenth District affirmed, holding Jennings’s collateral challenge was barred by res judicata because any sentencing error was voidable (not void) and thus should have been raised on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Jennings's motion to vacate allegedly improperly imposed post-release control. | Res judicata bars the collateral attack; the court had jurisdiction and the sentence is not void. | The post-release control sanction was improperly imposed and should be vacated/terminated. | Motion barred by res judicata; because the sentencing court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, any PRC error was voidable, not void, and had to be raised on direct appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2006) (issues that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred by res judicata)
- State v. Hutton, 100 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2003) (res judicata bars successive challenges to convictions when issues were available on direct appeal)