State v. Krisha, 2016 Ohio 3512

Dominick J. Krisha pled guilty in three Lake County cases: 11-CR-000595 (trafficking in marijuana; possession of heroin), 13-CR-000274 (trafficking in heroin), and 13-CR-000597 (possession of heroin).
On October 8, 2013, the trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of 10 years, ordering certain counts to run consecutively and others concurrently.
At sentencing the court made findings referencing R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(b), stating consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public and were not disproportionate.
On September 23, 2015, Krisha moved for resentencing under R.C. 2929.41, arguing the consecutive sentences were void for failing to state on the record consideration of R.C. 2929.41(A) and that consecutive terms violated double jeopardy.
The trial court denied the motion, explaining it lacked authority to modify an executed sentence and that the sentencing entries reflected the required statutory findings.
Krisha appealed; the appellate court consolidated the appeals and addressed whether res judicata barred his challenge to the consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Krisha may challenge the imposition of consecutive sentences in a post-conviction resentencing motion	State: The sentencing entries show required findings; the court lacked authority to modify an executed sentence	Krisha: Sentencing court failed to state on the record consideration of R.C. 2929.41(A) and thus consecutive sentences are void and warrant resentencing	The challenge is barred by res judicata because Krisha could have raised the statutory-sufficiency arguments on direct appeal; the sentencing errors are voidable, not void, so they must be raised on direct appeal

State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (establishes res judicata bar to claims not raised on direct appeal)
State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (Ohio 2008) (voidable sentencing errors must be raised on direct appeal)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (clarifies standards for appellate review of sentences and need for timely direct appeal)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (allied-offenses and concurrent/consecutive determinations must be raised on appeal)
State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2010) (same; appellate review required for sentencing statutory compliance)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (Ohio 2013) (reinforces that challenges to statutory sentencing compliance belong in direct appeal)