State v. Wang, 2016 Ohio 7578

Background

Charles Wang pled guilty in 2014 to aggravated trafficking and trafficking and received jointly recommended consecutive prison terms totaling 4.5 years.
Wang did not file a direct appeal from his convictions or sentences.
In July 2015 Wang filed a pro se "Motion for Resentencing" in the common pleas court, claiming the trial court erred by imposing mandatory prison time and ordering consecutive sentences without required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.
The common pleas court overruled the motion; Wang appealed that overruling to the First District Court of Appeals.
The appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the common pleas court’s entry because (1) the motion did not invoke a statute or procedure that vested the trial court with authority to grant relief, and (2) the order overruling the motion was not a "final order" or appealable postconviction order and the judgment was not void.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the common pleas court’s overruling of Wang’s motion	The State argued the appellate court lacked jurisdiction because the motion was not cognizable under postconviction statutes and the trial court’s entry was not an appealable final order	Wang contended the trial court erred in sentencing (mandatory prison and lack of consecutive-sentence findings) and the overruling should be reviewable on appeal	Held: No jurisdiction; appeal dismissed because the motion was not a postconviction petition, the entry was not a final order, and the sentence was not void
Whether the common pleas court could treat Wang’s filing as a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21	The State argued the motion alleged statutory sentencing errors, not constitutional errors, so it was not reviewable under postconviction statute	Wang claimed sentencing errors (statutory) entitled him to relief; he did not assert constitutional violations	Held: Motion not cognizable under R.C. 2953.21 because it alleged statutory (not constitutional) errors
Whether the common pleas court’s overruling was an appealable "final order" under R.C. 2505.02/2505.03	The State argued the entry did not affect a substantial right in an action or arise in a special proceeding, so it was not a final order	Wang argued he was entitled to review of the sentencing issues and that the order denying relief was appealable	Held: Not a final order; the motion was not filed in an action or special proceeding and the order did not determine or prevent a judgment
Whether the sentence/judgment was void (allowing collateral attack)	The State argued the sentence was authorized by statute (prison mandatory for aggravated trafficking) and consecutive-sentences findings were not required for jointly recommended consecutive terms, so the judgment was not void	Wang argued alleged sentencing errors rendered the judgment invalid and subject to collateral attack	Held: Judgment not void; sentencing errors were not of the sort that render a conviction void, so relief via void-judgment jurisdiction was not available

Key Cases Cited

State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153, 882 N.E.2d 431 (2008) (trial court may recast pro se filings to identify proper procedural vehicle)
State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1, 941 N.E.2d 768 (2010) (postconviction relief statute requires demonstration of constitutional error)
Dunbar v. State, 136 Ohio St.3d 181, 992 N.E.2d 1111 (2013) (a guilty plea is voidable—not void—when the court has subject-matter jurisdiction but errs)
State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 856 N.E.2d 263 (2006) (courts always have jurisdiction to correct void judgments)