State v. Mitchell, 2017 Ohio 8213

In 2006 Charles A. Mitchell was indicted on aggravated burglary, kidnapping (with sexual-motivation and sexually-violent-predator specifications), and four counts of rape arising from an incident with his ex-wife.
A 2006 jury convicted Mitchell of aggravated burglary (Count I) and kidnapping (Count II) and acquitted him on the four rape counts and the sexual-specification allegations.
Mitchell was sentenced in December 2006 to consecutive 10-year terms on Counts I and II. He unsuccessfully appealed and filed multiple post-conviction and collateral challenges (state appeals, a reopened appeal, federal habeas, and a mandamus petition).
In 2015 Mitchell moved under Crim.R. 36 to correct clerical errors in the sentencing entry; the trial court amended the entry to correct statutory section numbers and this court affirmed on appeal.
In April 2017 Mitchell again moved under Crim.R. 36, claiming the amended entry erroneously convicted him of rape (charges of which he had been acquitted). The trial court treated the motion as a petition for post-conviction relief and denied it as untimely and successive.
Mitchell appealed; the Fifth District affirmed, holding Mitchell had not satisfied the statutory exceptions to permit consideration of an untimely or successive post-conviction claim and that res judicata barred the claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying Mitchell’s Crim.R. 36 motion as an untimely/successive post-conviction petition	State: The motion was a post-conviction petition beyond the statutory time and successive; Mitchell failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the claim or that a new retroactive right applies; res judicata bars the claim	Mitchell: The sentencing entry contains a clerical error that convicted him of rape despite his acquittal and must be corrected via Crim.R. 36 to exonerate him of rape-related charges	Affirmed: Court treated the motion as post-conviction relief, found Mitchell did not meet R.C. 2953.23 exceptions and failed the requisite showing; res judicata also barred the claim

Reynolds v. State, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (motions seeking vacation or correction of sentence after direct appeal are treated as petitions for post-conviction relief)