State v. Sankey, 2019 Ohio 1947

Roberto Sankey pleaded guilty in Nov. 2016 to telecommunications fraud, passing bad checks, grand theft with a specification, and attempted grand theft; represented by counsel and sentenced to five years imprisonment.
Sankey did not file a direct appeal following conviction.
In 2018 he moved to modify his sentence and withdraw his guilty plea, arguing the indictment/bill of particulars overstated the theft amount for Jan. 15, 2013 (claimed $220,872.82 in documents vs. alleged actual $5,363.34), which he said upgraded the offense from a fourth-degree to a second-degree felony.
The trial court denied both motions, finding no error in the plea or sentencing entries and concluding the claims were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised on direct appeal.
Sankey also argued Ohio’s sentencing scheme violates the Eighth Amendment by giving judges excessive discretion; the trial court rejected this claim as not raised earlier and barred by res judicata.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Indictment defective for misstated theft amount	Indictment/exhibit overstated amount, causing conviction for a higher-degree felony	Sankey argued indictment error made his conviction/sentence unlawful	Court: Issue was in the record at plea and could have been raised on direct appeal; barred by res judicata and denied
Right to withdraw guilty plea / modify sentence based on indictment error	The alleged clerical/substantive error entitled him to withdraw plea and reduce sentence	Trial court found plea and sentencing entries proper and no basis to reopen	Denied: res judicata and no merit
Eighth Amendment challenge to Ohio sentencing structure	Sentencing judges have excessive discretion; scheme violates cruel and unusual punishment	Court treated issue as forfeited for failing to raise it below and as subject to res judicata	Denied: waived for not raised to trial court and barred by res judicata
Procedural bar of res judicata	Sankey contended postconviction relief was appropriate despite not appealing	State maintained issues could have been raised on direct appeal and are barred	Court applied State v. Szefcyk and barred the claims

State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (final judgment bars a represented defendant from raising in postconviction proceedings any defense or claimed lack of due process that was or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986) (failure to raise a constitutional argument at trial generally constitutes waiver)