State v. Lockhart, 2013 Ohio 3441

In 2006 a Delaware County grand jury indicted John C. Lockhart, Jr. for three counts of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)) and three counts of gross sexual imposition involving a nine‑year‑old victim.
A jury convicted Lockhart of one count of rape (victim under 13) and three counts of gross sexual imposition over continuous periods; sentencing occurred October 16, 2006.
The trial court sentenced Lockhart to life imprisonment on the rape count under R.C. 2907.02(B) as the victim was under ten, and four years on each GSI count.
Lockhart pursued a direct appeal (affirmed); a nunc pro tunc entry was filed in 2009 to add case history per State v. Baker, but it did not change the original sentence.
Lockhart later moved to correct an allegedly illegal sentence (arguing the life term omitted a definite 3–10 year term under R.C. 2929.14(A)(1)); the trial court denied the motion on January 8, 2013.
On appeal the Fifth District affirmed, holding the life sentence was authorized by statute and the motion was barred by res judicata because Lockhart could have raised the claim on direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lockhart's life sentence for rape under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) is an illegal sentence because it omitted a definite 3–10 year term under R.C. 2929.14(A)(1)	The State: sentence lawful because R.C. 2907.02(B) mandates life when the victim is under ten; life is therefore within sentencing statutes	Lockhart: life sentence is illegal and should include a definite 3–10 year term; he is ineligible for parole and denied due process	Court held the life sentence was lawful under R.C. 2907.02(B) for victims under ten; no definite 3–10 year term required
Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to correct sentence or whether res judicata bars relief	The State: relief barred by res judicata because defendant was represented and could have raised the sentencing claim on direct appeal	Lockhart: sentencing illegality entitles him to correction despite prior appeal history	Court held res judicata bars the claim; Lockhart could have raised the sentencing issue on direct appeal, so the motion was properly denied

State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (Ohio 2008) (requires trial courts to issue nunc pro tunc entries to accurately reflect sentencing history when necessary)
State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1982) (establishes that a final judgment bars issues that were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2012) (reinforces that defendants are barred from raising on postconviction matters issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)