State v. Singleton, 2014 Ohio 630

Singleton was convicted in 1997 by a three-judge panel of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, having a weapon while under disability, and an associated firearm specification, with consecutive sentences totaling 30 years to life for aggravated murder plus additional terms.
This court affirmed the conviction and the Ohio Supreme Court denied review.
Singleton later filed habeas corpus petitions in federal courts, which were denied, with the Sixth Circuit affirming and the Supreme Court denying review.
In 2005 Singleton filed a postconviction relief petition in state court, which was denied.
On September 10, 2013 Singleton filed a motion titled “Motion to Resentence” seeking merger of allied offenses and resentence based on a claimed constitutional error.
The trial court treated the motion as a petition for postconviction relief and denied it as untimely and barred by res judicata.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly treated the motion as postconviction relief	Singleton argues the court erred by recharacterizing his filing as postconviction relief.	Singleton's motion should be treated as a sentencing challenge, not postconviction relief.	Yes; the motion was properly construed as postconviction relief.
Whether the failure to merge allied offenses was plain error	Singleton contends the court erred by not merging allied offenses for sentencing.	Even if timely, the merger issue was barred by res judicata and untimely under R.C. 2953.21/2953.23.	Untimely and barred by res judicata; merger claim rejected.

State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1997) (defines when irregular motions become postconviction petitions)
State v. Caldwell, 2012-Ohio-1091 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2012) (recategorization of irregular motions for postconviction relief)
State v. Isa, 2013-Ohio-3382 (2d Dist. Champaign 2013) (postconviction timeliness analysis after Reynolds framework)
State v. Hibbler, 2009-Ohio-3641 (2d Dist. Clark 2009) (postconviction relief timing and substantive considerations)
State v. Parson, 2012-Ohio-730 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2012) (res judicata bar to merger claims on postconviction review)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (new merger framework does not apply retroactively to final judgments)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1966) (res judicata and final judgments principles in merger context)
Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (Ohio 1995) (broad application of res judicata and collateral issues)