State v. Rarden, 2014 Ohio 564

In 2006 Rarden was convicted after a jury trial on multiple felonies and misdemeanors and sentenced to 26.5 years; this court affirmed and the Ohio Supreme Court declined review.
Rarden filed multiple postconviction-type motions: a 2008 motion (construed and denied as untimely), a 2010 motion that resulted in a limited resentencing to correct postrelease-control advisement, and an April 2013 motion to vacate his sentence.
The trial court treated the April 2013 motion as a petition for postconviction relief, denied it as untimely, and found it barred by res judicata.
Rarden appealed pro se, arguing the court erred by reclassifying his motion as a petition for postconviction relief and asserting a right to vacatur under State v. Boswell.
The Twelfth District rejected Rarden’s arguments, held the reclassification was proper, found Boswell inapplicable, and affirmed the denial as untimely and barred by res judicata.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly reclassified Rarden's motion to vacate as a petition for postconviction relief	The motion met the Reynolds/Wilkins test and thus properly is treated as a petition under R.C. 2953.21	The motion sought to vacate a void judgment and should not be reclassified as postconviction relief (due process/equal protection claim)	Reclassification was proper because the motion was filed after direct appeal, alleged constitutional error, sought to void the judgment, and sought vacatur
Whether State v. Boswell required vacatur of Rarden’s sentence	Boswell applies only to defective pleas omitting postrelease control and so does not apply here	Boswell entitles Rarden to vacatur	Boswell inapplicable: Rarden was convicted after a jury trial, and the trial court already corrected postrelease-control advisement via resentencing
Whether the petition was timely or barred by res judicata	The petition was untimely under R.C. 2953.21 and was barred by res judicata given earlier proceedings	Rarden did not prevail on a substantive rebuttal to timeliness/res judicata in the record	Trial court did not err: petition untimely and barred by res judicata

State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 (2008) (courts may recast irregular motions into the proper procedural category)
State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (post-direct-appeal motions alleging constitutional violations and seeking vacatur are petitions for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21)
State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 (2009) (remedy for pleas defective for omission of postrelease control)
State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (2009) (postrelease-control advisement issues)
State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009) (postrelease-control advisement issues)
State v. Rarden, 125 Ohio St.3d 1416 (2010) (appeal not accepted; prior procedural history noted)