State v. Sage, 2013 Ohio 3048

In 2004 Sage was indicted for two counts of aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and having weapons while under disability; firearm specifications were dismissed in plea negotiations.
In April 2005 Sage pled guilty to all counts; written plea forms stated he faced post-release control ("up to" five years for robbery/burglary, "up to" three years for weapons), though aggravated murder would involve parole if ever released.
Sage was sentenced to life (merged murders) plus five years; sentencing entries correctly referenced parole for murder and post-release control for the other counts.
On direct appeal Sage’s sentence was vacated under State v. Foster and the case was remanded; after an oral post‑sentence motion to withdraw his plea was denied, the court reimposed sentence and this court affirmed.
Sage later filed several collateral motions (including a 2009 Colon-based motion and the 2012 “motion for rescission of contractual agreement”) arguing the plea forms were defective because they referenced post-release control improperly; the trial court treated the 2012 motion as a post-conviction petition, found it untimely and barred by res judicata, and denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sage)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by treating Sage's "motion for rescission" as a post-conviction petition and dismissing it as untimely/res judicata	Motion was a post‑sentence withdrawal of plea request (not collateral relief) and challenged plea agreement defects; thus Crim.R. 32.1 should apply	The motion functionally sought post‑conviction relief, was untimely under R.C. 2953.21, and the issues could have been raised earlier	Court: Even if treated as a Crim.R. 32.1 motion, Sage failed to show manifest injustice; res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal; no error in denial
Whether the judgment is void (because plea forms improperly referenced post-release control) and thus subject to relief despite res judicata	Plea agreements were void/unenforceable due to incorrect post-release control language, making the judgment void and requiring rescission	Sentencing entries (including the 2007 entry) properly imposed parole for murder and post-release control for other counts; no void judgment and no State breach shown	Court: Judgment not void; sentencing entries corrected discrepancy; contractual‑remedy theory fails; assignments of error overruled

State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006) (sentencing principles requiring severance of certain statutory provisions)
State v. Bush, 773 N.E.2d 522 (Ohio 2002) (distinguishing post‑sentence plea withdrawal from post‑conviction relief)
State v. Smith, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (Ohio 1977) (post‑sentence plea withdrawal permitted only to prevent manifest injustice)
State v. Xie, 584 N.E.2d 715 (Ohio 1991) (trial court discretion in resolving Crim.R. 32.1 motions; appellate review for abuse of discretion)
State v. Perry, 226 N.E.2d 104 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars claims raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Ketterer, 935 N.E.2d 9 (Ohio 2010) (applying res judicata to motions challenging guilty pleas)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (remedies for breached plea agreements include rescission or specific performance)
State v. Underwood, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (trial court not bound by plea agreements unless it agrees to their terms)
State v. Colon, 885 N.E.2d 917 (Ohio 2008) (indictment mens rea issue referenced by Sage in earlier collateral motion)
State v. Calhoun, 714 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio 1999) (distinguishing collateral attack from direct remedies)