State v. Stores, 2013 Ohio 4361

Stores was convicted Jan 12, 1996 of complicity to aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping with firearm specs; affirmed on direct appeal; reopening denied.
On Aug 27, 2012, Stores moved for resentencing under R.C. 2941.25 to clarify whether firearm specs run concurrently or consecutively and merger.
State moved to dismiss, arguing the motion is a post-conviction petition, untimely under R.C. 2953.21, and barred by res judicata.
Trial court dismissed on Sept 6, 2012 as untimely and barred by res judicata.
On appeal, Stores contends the petition is for post-conviction relief and seeks merger of firearm specs; the court affirms the trial court’s dismissal and judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition was properly treated as an untimely post-conviction filing	Stores argued for relief under post-conviction standards	State asserts untimeliness and res judicata bar	Petition untimely; treated as post-conviction; barred by timeliness and res judicata

State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (establishes post-conviction relief standards and timeliness)
State v. Milanovich, 42 Ohio St.2d 46 (1975) (limits on post-conviction relief to matters outside the trial record)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (defines res judicata effect on post-conviction claims)
State v. Hill, 129 Ohio App.3d 658 (2000) (retroactivity/novel rights in post-conviction context)