State v. Sankey, 2019 Ohio 2870

Roberto Sankey pleaded guilty in Nov. 2016 to telecommunications fraud, passing bad checks, grand theft (with a specification), and attempted grand theft; he was sentenced to five years imprisonment and did not appeal.
In Feb. 2019 Sankey filed a pro se postconviction motion arguing the indictment was duplicitous (consolidating charges to elevate offense levels) and that trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging it.
Sankey’s challenge relied solely on matters of record (the indictments and an attached exhibit).
The trial court denied the motion as barred by res judicata.
The appellate court affirmed, finding the claims could have been raised on direct appeal or earlier postconviction proceedings; Sankey had previously raised a similar argument which had been overruled and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sankey may raise ineffective-assistance claim based on an alleged duplicitous indictment in postconviction proceedings	State: Claim is barred by res judicata because it could have been raised on direct appeal	Sankey: Trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the duplicitous indictment, so relief is available	Court held claim is barred by res judicata; denial of postconviction relief affirmed

State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (final conviction bars raising defenses or due-process claims postconviction that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Combs, 100 Ohio App.3d 90 (1st Dist. 1994) (postconviction ineffective-assistance claims based on the trial record are subject to res judicata)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (framework for res judicata in postconviction relief)
State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (postconviction review limitations when claims could have been raised on direct appeal)