State v. Simpson, 2020 Ohio 6840

In 2006 a 14‑count indictment charged Simpson with aggravated robbery, robbery, kidnapping (all with firearm specifications), and having a weapon while under disability; counts later dismissed left guilty pleas to two aggravated robberies (with firearm specs), one kidnapping (with firearm spec), and one weapons‑under‑disability count.
Plea entered May 21, 2007; court discussed potential incarceration, fines, and post‑release control; sentencing set after PSI.
Simpson filed pro se motions to withdraw his plea pre‑ and at sentencing; the trial court denied the motions and imposed a 30‑year prison term on October 5, 2007.
On direct appeal the Tenth District affirmed in 2008; Simpson later filed post‑conviction motions (2016 denied) and, in July 2019, the pro se motion at issue here which the trial court treated as a successive motion to withdraw plea and denied as barred by res judicata.
Simpson appealed; after a delayed‑appeal procedure, the Tenth District considered two assignments: (1) trial court mischaracterized his motion for resentencing as one to withdraw his plea, and (2) his original sentence was void and required de novo resentencing because of sentencing‑packaging and post‑release‑control notice errors.

Issue	State's Argument	Simpson's Argument	Held
Whether Simpson is entitled to de novo resentencing because the original sentence was void (packaging and failure to advise penalties for post‑release control).	Errors alleged are voidable, not void; Simpson could have raised them on direct appeal and they are barred by res judicata.	Trial court impermissibly applied "sentence packaging" and failed to advise of penalties for violating post‑release control, rendering sentence void.	Court: Errors are voidable under Harper and related precedent; barred by res judicata; no de novo resentencing.
Whether the trial court erred by treating Simpson's filing as a motion to withdraw his guilty plea rather than as a motion for resentencing.	Characterization is immaterial because the claims raised are precluded; substance controls over caption.	Trial court mischaracterized the motion, limiting review.	Court: Issue moot—because the substantive claims are barred by res judicata, the labeling of the motion does not change the outcome.

State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (earlier Ohio Supreme Court decision on post‑release control authority referenced in void/voidable discussion)
State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (1984) (cited for prior void‑sentence jurisprudence)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (quoted regarding res judicata, finality, and preventing relitigation)
Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (discusses jurisdictional errors and when judgments are voidable)