State v. McCall, 2012 Ohio 5604

McCall was convicted of aggravated murder, felonious assault, and aggravated robbery for a 1990 incident involving two store clerks and a theft.
Sentences in 1991: life with parole after 20 years plus a 3-year firearm specification; 8–25 years plus a 3-year firearm specification; 10–25 years plus a 3-year firearm specification.
Counts 1 and 2 ran consecutively; counts 1 and 2 firearm specs ran consecutively; count 3 ran concurrently with count 1 and its firearm spec because part of the same act or transaction.
A 2010 sentencing entry added jury verdict language to comply with Baker v. Ohio, Crim.R. 32(C).
In 2012 McCall moved to correct a portion of the sentence, arguing counts 1 and 2 firearm specs were part of the same act and the consecutive specs were void under former R.C. 2929.71(B).
The trial court recharacterized the motion as an untimely petition for post-conviction relief and denied it; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does R.C. 2929.71(B) render a firearm spec void or voidable when consecutive sentencing violated it?	State argues the violation makes the sentence voidable, not void.	McCall contends the violation creates a void sentence that can be challenged any time.	Violation is voidable; not void. Motion was properly treated as untimely post-conviction relief.
Can a motion to correct a void portion be raised at any time, or must it follow post-conviction timelines?	State contends the motion is an untimely petition for post-conviction relief if properly characterized.	McCall argues it is a motion to vacate a void sentence available anytime.	Such motions are not actions to vacate a void judgment; they are post-conviction petitions if not truly void. Here it was untimely.
Was there a facial defect or statutorily mandated term error that would render the sentence void?	State suggests no statutorily mandated term was violated.	McCall asserts misapplication of 2929.71(B) created a void sentence.	No facial or mandated-term defect; the error is a potential voidable issue, not void.

State v. Wills, 69 Ohio St.3d 690 (1994) (defines 'transaction' for checks under 2929.71(B))
State v. Moore, 161 Ohio App.3d 778 (7th Dist. 2005) (distinct animus/merger test; firearm specs are treated separately from merger analysis)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (narrow exception for void sentences when statutorily mandated terms are not imposed)
State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (2012) (voidness limited to statutorily mandated term failures; etc.)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (2007) (distinguishes void vs voidable sentencing; jurisdictional scope)
State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008) (sentencing errors generally not jurisdictional; exceptions apply)