State v. Meincke, 2011 Ohio 6473

Meincke was indicted in 2006 on one robbery count and five extortion counts for allegedly blackmailing a vulnerable elderly woman to obtain heroin money.
She entered a no contest plea and was found guilty on all counts by the trial court.
On July 10, 2007, she received a one-year term for extortion and a five-year community-control sanction for robbery, with restitution of $28,000 payable at $300 per month.
Evidence at sentencing described substantial losses to the victim, including charged debts and items taken (car, van, appliances, heirlooms) though the record on appeal is incomplete.
On June 15, 2009, the court revoked community control and imposed three years in prison for extortion, with a nunc pro tunc entry later applying that term to the robbery conviction.
In December 2010, Meincke filed a pro se motion to vacate restitution and void the sentences; the trial court denied the motion as untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of postconviction petition	Meincke asserting postconviction relief timely after direct-appeal window.	State argues petition untimely under RC 2953.21/A; no valid exception shown.	Untimely petition proper grounds fail; relief denied.
Voidness of sentence and nunc pro tunc correction	Meincke argues the nunc pro tunc entry was improper to correct the sentence.	State contends nunc pro tunc valid to align sentence with correct count.	Nunc pro tunc correction upheld; sentence not voided.
Restitution order validity	Restitution order void for lack of proper hearing or proof of loss/payability.	State contends restitution was properly ordered and entered.	Restitution order not vacated; no error found requiring voiding.
Appellate-right advisement and record sufficiency	Meincke claims improper advisement of appellate rights at sentencing.	Record incomplete; presumption of regularity controls; no direct appeal shown.	Arguments overruled due to incomplete record; presumption of regularity upheld.

State v. Caldwell, 2005-Ohio-5375 (Ohio 2005) (treats vaguely titled motions as postconviction petitions when appropriate)
State v. Reynolds, 1997-Ohio-304 (Ohio Supreme Court 1997) (defines postconviction relief standards and timing implications)
State v. Wright, 2005-Ohio-4171 (Ohio App. 2005) (untimely direct-appeal timelines applied to postconviction petitions)
State v. Ferguson, 1998-Ohio-6976 (Ohio App. 1998) (helps interpret timing and postconviction procedures)
State v. Boswell, 2009-Ohio-1577 (Ohio 2009) (void sentences; trial court may be compelled to correct or vacate)
State v. Holcomb, 2009-Ohio-3187 (Ohio App. 2009) (nunc pro tunc corrections and related consequences)
State v. Pesci, 2011-Ohio-1058 (Ohio App. 2011) (addresses postconviction relief and related voidness concerns)