State v. Miller, 2012 Ohio 1922

In 2007 Miller pled guilty to aggravated robbery with a firearm specification and five counts of kidnapping with firearm specifications, along with other charges.
Miller did not file a direct appeal following his 2007 plea.
In 2011 Miller moved for resentencing, arguing his sentence was void because aggravated robbery and kidnapping are allied offenses of similar import and should have merged under R.C. 2941.25.
The trial court denied the motion as untimely, and Miller appealed.
The court addressed whether the motion was untimely and whether res judicata barred Miller’s allied-offense claim.
The court affirmed, holding that a void sentence may be reviewed, but an argument that would render a sentence voidable is barred by res judicata if not raised on direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of resentencing motion	Miller argues resentencing was timely	State argues untimely filing	Untimely; properly denied
Res judicata bar on allied-offense claim	Miller contends res judicata does not bar void-sentence challenges	State contends allied-offense claim barred absent direct appeal	Res judicata bars the claim; denial affirmed

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (voidness of statutorily improper sentences reviewable)
State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008) (definition of void vs voidable judgments)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (2007) (res judicata bars claims not raised on direct appeal)
In re B.C.S., 4th Dist. No. 07CA60 (2008) (res judicata precludes successive review on same issue)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (finality and efficiency of litigation)
State v. Cioffi, 2012-Ohio-299 (11th Dist. Nos. 2011-T-0072 & 2011-T-0073) (allied-offense argument may render sentence voidable, not void)
State v. Britta, 2011-Ohio-6096 (11th Dist. No. 2011-L-041) (allied-offense argument barred by res judicata)
State ex rel. Martin v. Russo, 130 Ohio St.3d 269 (2011) (bolded: allied-offense claims barred absent direct appeal)