State v. Peoples, 2019 Ohio 2141

Defendant David A. Peoples was convicted (jury trial 2002) of aggravated murder and two firearm specifications (R.C. 2941.145 and 2941.146); court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 34 years, including 6 years for the drive-by (R.C. 2941.146) specification.
The convictions and original sentence were affirmed on direct appeal; a corrected judgment entry in 2008 reiterated the same sentence.
In 2017 Peoples moved to vacate his sentence, arguing among other things that the six-year term for the drive-by specification was invalid; the State conceded the drive-by specification mandates a five-year term.
The trial court denied Peoples’ motion to vacate the void sentence; Peoples appealed that denial to the Tenth District Court of Appeals.
The appellate court concluded the six-year term for the R.C. 2941.146 specification is void because the statute mandates a five-year additional term, and remanded with instructions to reduce the specification sentence to five years and adjust the overall computation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the six-year sentence for the R.C. 2941.146 drive-by specification is lawful	State acknowledged the error and that statute mandates five years	Peoples argued the six-year term is void because the statute requires a five-year mandatory term	The six-year term is void; remand to reduce it to five years and adjust computation
Whether the void specification requires full resentencing	State argued limited remand, not de novo resentencing	Peoples sought correction of the void specification term	Court ordered correction of the specification term only; other sentences remain unchanged
Whether collateral attack is barred by res judicata	State implicitly relied on prior affirmance	Peoples asserted void sentence review is available collateral attack	Void sentence review is available at any time for the void portion; res judicata does not bar it
Effect on remaining sentence and calculation	State argued limited effect	Peoples sought adjustment to overall sentence computation	Court left aggravated murder and other specification sentences intact but instructed recalculation to reflect one-year reduction

State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (2012) (sentence not conforming to statute is void)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (void-sentence doctrine; sentences contrary to statutorily mandated terms are void)
State v. Moore, 135 Ohio St.3d 151 (2012) (statutorily mandated terms must be included in sentences)
State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008) (void-sentence principle reiterated)
State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (1984) (historical authority on void sentences)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (2013) (void sanction may be modified if prison portion not completely served)
Colegrove v. Burns, 175 Ohio St.3d 437 (2018) (principles on statutory sentencing requirements)