State v. Perkins, 2014 Ohio 1863

Perkins pled no contest to multiple felonies in 2006 with an agreed sentence range of 8 to 15 years and five years of post-release control.
The sentencing entry included a restitution provision but failed to specify the amount in open court, creating a restitution-amount ambiguity.
The court initially imposed 12 years, later reiterated the sentence, and entered restitution language in a termination entry.
Perkins later sought to withdraw his plea (April 2010 onward), arguing pre-sentence standards should apply due to the restitution defect and a purported void sentence.
In 2012–2013 Perkins sought to merge allied offenses and again to withdraw his plea; the trial court treated the merger claim as res judicata/post-conviction and denied the motions, which Perkins appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion to withdraw the plea was pre-sentence or post-sentence	Perkins argues restitution defect/voidness warrants pre-sentence standard.	State contends the sentence was real and the motion is post-sentence.	Trial court did not abuse; post-sentence standard applied.
Whether the restitution-amount omission rendered the sentence void	Restitution omission makes the order void and supports pre-sentence relief.	Restitution is a financial sanction, not a voiding defect; remedy is re-sentencing on restitution.	Not a basis to treat motion as pre-sentence; remedy is re-sentencing on restitution issue.
Whether the failure to impose a required mandatory sentence voided the sentence	Non-imposition of mandatory term under R.C. 2929.13(F)(6) voids the sentence.	Fisher and Harris limit voidness; only parts may be void, not entire sentence; merger issue already controlled by res judicata.	If void, only affected parts; did not compel pre-sentence withdrawal; no abuse of discretion.
Whether the trial court correctly denied the merger of allied offenses for sentencing	Felonious Assault and Kidnapping are allied offenses of similar import and should be merged.	Res judicata and post-conviction restraints bar the claim; issues could have been raised earlier.	Denied; merger claim barred by res judicata and untimely/post-conviction constraints.

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (pre-sentence withdrawal favored, but within discretion)
State v. Fugate, 2007-Ohio-26 (2007) (post-sentence manifest-injustice standard)
State v. Fisher, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (void-sentence doctrine limited by Fisher to post-sentencing context)
State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (2012) (forfeiture is not a conviction or mandatory punishment; restitution treated as discretionary)
State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 (2010) (restitution decisions are substantive and cannot be cured nunc pro tunc)
State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (2010) (costs are civil obligations; post-release-control not analogous to costs)
State v. Segines, 2013-Ohio-5259 (2013) (res judicata can bar allied-offense claims)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (allied-offense analysis governs merger challenges)
State v. Singleton, 2014-Ohio-630 (2014) (R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)/time limits; exceptions not apply to sentencing-only claims)
State v. Plassenthal, 2008-Ohio-5465 (2008) (interlocutory restitution orders not final for appeal)