State v. Snowden, 2021 Ohio 2885

In July 2013 Snowden committed OVI-related offenses. On September 22, 2014 he pled no contest to two counts of OVI with a Specification of Repeat OVI Offender (fourth-degree felonies).
The indictment alleged Snowden had five prior OVI convictions within twenty years, triggering the repeat-offender felony classification and mandatory prison exposure under R.C. 4511.19 and related statutes.
The trial court merged counts and imposed consecutive mandatory one-year terms (one year for OVI and one year for the repeat specification).
Snowden appealed; this court affirmed his conviction and sentence in 2015.
On November 17, 2020 Snowden filed a Motion to Vacate Void Judgment, claiming the indictment was void because the statute was misapplied (arguing the 20-year lookback only applies to aggravated vehicular offenses) and alleging prosecutorial misconduct/Brady violations.
The trial court treated the filing as an untimely petition for postconviction relief, found no Brady or prosecutorial-misconduct evidence, and denied relief. Snowden appealed that denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the indictment charged a non-existent crime (i.e., felony OVI based on five priors within 20 years)	State: Indictment properly charged repeat-offender felony under R.C. 4511.19 and related specs	Snowden: No statute authorizes a 4th-degree felony OVI based on five priors within 20 years unless aggravated vehicular homicide/assault is involved; indictment therefore void	Court: Rejected Snowden’s statutory reading; repeat-offender felony and specification valid without requiring aggravated vehicular offenses
Whether Snowden’s Motion to Vacate was timely and showed prosecutorial misconduct/Brady violation	State: Motion is an untimely postconviction petition and contains no evidentiary showing of misconduct or Brady material	Snowden: Collateral attack appropriate because indictment is void; alleges misconduct and Brady violations that void the judgment	Court: Motion was untimely under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a); court found no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violation; assignments of error lack merit

State v. Cimpritz, 110 N.E.2d 416 (Ohio 1953) (a conviction based on an indictment that does not charge an offense is void)
State ex rel. Rackley v. Sloan, 78 N.E.3d 819 (Ohio 2016) (defects in an indictment are nonjurisdictional; challenges are not necessarily void)
State v. Wozniak, 178 N.E.2d 800 (Ohio 1961) (defective indictments render charges voidable; collateral attacks are generally barred)
Brinkman v. Drolesbaugh, 119 N.E. 451 (Ohio 1918) (distinction between void and voidable indictments explained)
State ex rel. Bandarapalli v. Gallagher, 943 N.E.2d 1020 (Ohio 2011) (direct appeal required to challenge an otherwise voidable conviction)
Midling v. Perrini, 236 N.E.2d 557 (Ohio 1968) (same principle on collateral attack limitations)