State v. Vandergriff, 2015 Ohio 3177

Timothy Vandergriff was indicted on multiple counts: four counts of gross sexual imposition, one count of domestic violence (Clermont C.P. No. 2013 CR 00083), and one count of sexual battery (2013 CR 00173).
On March 26, 2013, Vandergriff pled guilty to two counts of gross sexual imposition, one domestic violence count, and one sexual battery count; he was represented by counsel and did not appeal.
The trial court imposed mandatory maximum terms: five years on each gross sexual imposition count, 180 days on domestic violence, and eight years on sexual battery, ordering the sexual offenses to be served consecutively for an aggregate 18-year term.
Vandergriff filed a delayed appeal motion (denied) and, on May 9, 2014, filed a motion the trial court treated as a petition for postconviction relief challenging joint hearings, consecutive maximum sentences, and merger of allied offenses.
The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely under R.C. 2953.21 and barred by res judicata; this appeal challenges that dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / Jurisdiction to consider postconviction petition	Court: petition must be filed within 180 days after time to appeal expires; late petitions require R.C. 2953.23(A) showing	Vandergriff: petition should be considered despite delay	Court held petition untimely; Vandergriff failed to meet R.C. 2953.23(A) requirements, so trial court lacked jurisdiction
Res judicata bar to postconviction claims	Court: convictions final; claims that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred	Vandergriff: claims (joint hearings, consecutive/max sentences, merger) should be reviewed in postconviction proceedings	Court held claims were barred by res judicata because Vandergriff was represented by counsel and could have raised them on direct appeal
Merger/allied-offense challenge	N/A in disposition — treated as an arguable sentencing error	Vandergriff: gross sexual imposition counts are allied offenses and should merge	Court refused to reach merits because claim was barred by res judicata and untimely
Sentencing (consecutive & maximum terms)	N/A in disposition — sentencing could have been litigated on direct appeal	Vandergriff: sentencing was improper (maximum and consecutive)	Court held sentencing claims are barred by res judicata and untimely; no relief granted

State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (postconviction relief is a collateral civil attack, not an appeal)
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined for appellate review)