State v. O'Neal, 2015 Ohio 5181

In 2005, Mr. O’Neal pleaded guilty to kidnapping, felonious assault, carrying a concealed weapon, and illegal firearm possession, receiving a total 13-year sentence.
The sentencing entry had irregularities later corrected nunc pro tunc in 2007.
On direct appeal from the corrected entry, this court affirmed the convictions and sentence.
This court later upheld the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.
Over the years, O’Neal filed multiple motions; this appeal arises from a July 2015 motion to vacate void judgment denied as barred by res judicata.
The sentencing hearing had indicated a total 13-year term, which the nunc pro tunc entry reportedly matched, and the court’s prior appellate history includes earlier affirmations and dismissals.
Costs were taxed to O’Neal, and the decision was entered with opinions concurring by multiple judges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the nunc pro tunc order was void and not subject to res judicata.	O’Neal contends the nunc pro tunc entry was void and conveyed a different judgment.	The State argues res judicata bars this challenge because it could have been raised earlier.	Barred by res judicata; assignment rejected.
Whether the nunc pro tunc entry improperly modified an open-court sentence.	O’Neal argues the court lacked authority to alter the sentence via nunc pro tunc.	The State maintains the issue was previously or could have been raised on direct appeal.	Barred by res judicata; assignment rejected.

State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010-Ohio-3831) (res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on appeal)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006-Ohio-1245) (res judicata applies to issues that could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Singfield, 2015-Ohio-2841 (2015-Ohio-2841) (res judicata bars claims not raised on appeal)
State ex rel. Davis v. Saffold, No. 2015-Ohio-1517 (2015-Ohio-1517) (voidness challenges to nunc pro tunc entries barred by res judicata)