State v. Sands, 2021 Ohio 659

Joseph A. Sands was convicted on November 22, 2006 of RICO (Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity), multiple conspiracies to commit aggravated murder, and conspiracies to commit aggravated arson; he received a 20-year sentence.
The convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal; Sands has repeatedly filed numerous postconviction motions and appeals, most of which were dismissed as meritless.
On March 9, 2017, the Lake County Clerk of Courts sent a letter to Marion Correctional Institution asking that Sands’ inmate account funds be applied to outstanding court costs (bill of costs showing $2,732.90 owed).
Sands filed motions in 2019 seeking to stop the collection and to obtain a hearing on indigency and garnishment; those motions were denied and Sands appealed, and this court rejected his due-process/garnishment arguments in a 2019 opinion.
On May 19, 2020 Sands filed a motion arguing the clerk’s 2017 letter amounted to a revival of a dormant December 11, 2006 judgment and that he was entitled to notice and a hearing; the trial court denied the motion and Sands appealed.
The appellate court affirmed, holding Sands’ current challenge was barred by res judicata because he had previously litigated or could have litigated the issues in earlier motions and appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sands may challenge the alleged revival of a dormant judgment and demand a hearing now	State: Sands’ motion is barred by res judicata; he previously litigated or could have litigated these claims and cannot relitigate them	Sands: The 2017 clerk letter revived a dormant 2006 judgment; collection is time-barred and he was entitled to notice and a hearing before funds were taken	Court: Affirmed trial court; res judicata bars the claim because Sands had prior opportunity to raise these issues and had previously litigated related objections

State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 671 N.E.2d 233 (1996) (convicted defendant barred by res judicata from raising defenses or due-process claims that were or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)
Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995) (a final judgment on the merits bars subsequent actions arising from the same transaction)
Brick Processors, Inc. v. Culbertson, 2 Ohio App.3d 478, 442 N.E.2d 1313 (1982) (res judicata prevents relief on successive, similar motions raising issues that were or could have been raised originally)