State v. Morrison, 2017 Ohio 1240

Background

James F. Morrison was convicted of four counts of attempted pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor and sentenced on July 27, 2012 to four consecutive 30‑month terms (total 120 months).
Morrison previously appealed and this court affirmed his convictions and sentences; the Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction.
Morrison filed multiple post‑conviction motions and a mandamus action challenging consecutive sentencing, post‑release control advisements, and the trial court's consideration of sentencing purposes; prior appellate rulings found many of these claims not to render the sentence void and directed that challenges be raised on direct appeal.
On December 14, 2016 Morrison moved to vacate his sentence asserting (1) improper post‑release control advisement, (2) failure to consider R.C. 2929.11 purposes and principles, and (3) failure to make statutory findings for consecutive sentences; the trial court initially granted a new sentencing hearing as to consecutive findings but then vacated that order as void.
The trial court and this court concluded (1) errors in consecutive sentencing do not automatically render a sentence void and are generally for direct appeal; (2) Morrison’s post‑release control advisement using the word "plus" adequately conveyed that a post‑release control sanction could run consecutively; and (3) claims barred by res judicata if they could have been raised on direct appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to reconsider its own order granting a new sentencing hearing	State: trial court correctly vacated its own void January 3 order; courts lack authority to reconsider valid final judgments except when void or clerical error	Morrison: trial court exceeded jurisdiction when it reconsidered and vacated its January 3 order granting a new hearing	Court: January 3 order was void because consecutive‑sentencing errors do not render sentence void; trial court had authority to vacate its own void judgment — overruled Morrison
Post‑release control advisement adequacy	State: the language used ("plus") sufficiently informed defendant that PRC sanctions could be imposed consecutively	Morrison: trial court failed to advise that PRC violation could result in a consecutive prison term in addition to a new felony sentence, rendering sentence void	Court: advisement using "plus" conveyed consecutive nature; sentence not void on this ground — overruled Morrison
Failure to make statutory findings for consecutive sentences	State: alleged errors in consecutive sentencing do not make sentence void and are subject to direct appeal; res judicata applies	Morrison: trial court’s omission of findings required by statute renders consecutive portion void	Court: claim barred by res judicata and consecutive‑sentencing errors do not render sentence void — overruled Morrison
Failure to consider purposes and principles of felony sentencing (R.C. 2929.11)	State: claim could have been raised on direct appeal and falls outside void‑sentence exception	Morrison: trial court did not properly consider purposes/principles, making sentence void	Court: barred by res judicata; issue does not make sentence void — overruled Morrison

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335 (trial courts lack authority to reconsider valid final criminal judgments)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (a sentence missing statutorily mandated post‑release control is void)
State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (discussion of void‑sentence and clerical errors exceptions)
Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427 (trial court has inherent authority to vacate its own void judgments)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (challenges to consecutive sentences on direct appeal)
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)