State v. Lawless, 2021 Ohio 2828

Richard J. Lawless was indicted on 39 felony counts (including RICO, multiple trafficking, burglary, felonious assault, abduction, weapons under disability) and forfeiture specifications.
On May 23, 2016, Lawless pled no contest to all counts and signed a plea agreement recommending an aggregate 20-year prison term (14 years mandatory) and certain forfeitures; the plea and agreement were accepted by the trial court.
The trial court sentenced Lawless on July 5, 2016; the sentencing entry was journalized July 14, 2016 and ordered concurrent service with a Wayne County sentence.
Lawless filed multiple pro se post-conviction and post-judgment motions (2017–2020) challenging sentencing, forfeiture, indictment sufficiency, and counsel effectiveness; the trial court denied those motions (notably October 25, 2019 and December 10, 2020).
Lawless filed the instant appeal on January 5, 2021, raising four assignments of error: (1) no final appealable order; (2) court cannot forfeit property without a final appealable order; (3) forfeiture requires a finding of guilt in the sentencing record where defendant pled no contest; (4) trial counsel ineffective for allowing the errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether the trial court issued a final appealable order	State: Appellant's challenge is untimely and procedurally barred; the December 10, 2020 filing is not a timely appeal from the 2016 sentencing entry	Lawless: Trial court did not issue a final appealable order, so sentence/forfeiture defective	Appeal untimely; dismissed under App.R.4 as filed too late and claims barred by res judicata
2. Whether the court can forfeit property without a final appealable order	State: Forfeiture challenges must have been raised earlier; res judicata bars relitigation	Lawless: Court cannot forfeit property absent a final appealable order	Forfeiture claim barred by res judicata and untimely; appeal dismissed
3. Whether forfeiture can occur without an explicit finding of guilt when pleading no contest	State: Claim should have been raised on direct appeal and is now barred	Lawless: No explicit finding of guilt in sentencing record accompanying a no-contest plea, so forfeiture improper	Claim is barred by res judicata and untimely; no relief granted
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for permitting the plea/form	State: Ineffective-assistance claim could have been raised earlier and is procedurally barred here	Lawless: Counsel was utterly ineffective for allowing the alleged errors	Ineffective-assistance claim is barred by res judicata/untimeliness; appeal dismissed

State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (establishes that a final judgment of conviction bars relitigation of issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (reiterates and applies res judicata principles to criminal collateral and post-conviction claims)