State v. Osco, 2015 Ohio 44

Kody M. Osco pleaded guilty in two separate Portage County cases (felonious assault and burglary) pursuant to a written plea agreement in January 2013; the state agreed to "stand silent" at sentencing and other counts were to be dismissed.
At the joint sentencing hearing, the assistant prosecutor nevertheless recommended two concurrent seven-year terms; counsel and Osco did not object and the court adopted the recommendation and entered judgments on March 21, 2013.
Osco did not appeal the sentencing judgments. About two months later he moved to withdraw his guilty pleas asserting (1) the prosecutor breached the plea agreement and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court overruled those motions without a hearing and Osco did not appeal.
Eight months later Osco filed motions styled as requests to declare the sentencing judgments void (arguing constitutional violations) and requested findings of fact and conclusions of law; the trial court denied both motions in single-sentence entries.
On appeal, Osco argued the sentence was void because the prosecutor breached the plea agreement and trial counsel failed to object; the court treated the "void" motion as a petition for postconviction relief and addressed timeliness and res judicata.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Osco)	Held
Whether trial court was required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on Osco's motion to declare sentences void	Trial: The motion is a postconviction petition and, because it was untimely, the court need not enter findings; dismissal proper	Osco: Trial court should issue findings and conclusions and hold a hearing because the plea agreement was breached and constitutional rights were violated	Court: The motion was an untimely postconviction petition under R.C. 2953.21; no duty to issue findings when petition is untimely; affirmed
Whether Osco's claims (breach of plea, ineffective assistance) could be litigated in this post-judgment motion	State: Claims were cognizable on direct appeal or timely postconviction petition; because he failed to appeal and petition was untimely, res judicata and timeliness bar relief	Osco: Breach and Sixth Amendment violation require relief and can render sentence void; subject-matter-jurisdiction argument allows collateral attack	Court: Res judicata bars re-litigation of issues that could have been raised on direct appeal; even subject-matter jurisdiction arguments can be waived if fully litigated and not timely appealed; barred

State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (explaining postconviction-petition treatment of motions alleging constitutional errors)
State ex rel. James v. Coyne, 114 Ohio St.3d 45 (statutory duty to issue findings does not apply when petition is untimely)
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (res judicata bars criminal defendants represented by counsel from raising claims that were or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (foundational Ohio doctrine on res judicata in criminal cases)
State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98 (use of motion to withdraw guilty plea to present evidence outside the record)