State v. Ward
2017 Ohio 4411
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Rex S. Ward pled guilty in 1997 to multiple felonies (including rape) and was sentenced in 1998 to an aggregate 38-year term.
- Ward made multiple post-conviction filings over the years: a delayed‑appeal request (2006) denied, a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea (2014) denied and affirmed on appeal (Ward I and Ward II).
- In June 2016 Ward filed a pro se motion to "vacate a void judgment entry and sentence," arguing the trial court had imposed a blanket mandatory sentence and failed to specify which counts carried mandatory time.
- The State argued the motion should be treated as a petition for post-conviction relief and was untimely and barred by res judicata.
- The trial court construed the motion as an untimely post-conviction petition and denied it; the court also noted the Tenth District previously rejected Ward’s sentencing claims.
- The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court properly treated the motion as an untimely petition and that Ward’s claims were precluded by res judicata and meritless on the void‑sentence theory.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Ward's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by recasting Ward’s motion to vacate as a petition for post‑conviction relief | The motion sought vacation of sentence on constitutional grounds after the direct appeal period expired and thus is a post‑conviction petition subject to R.C. 2953.21 time limits | The filing was a motion to vacate a void judgment/sentence and thus should not be treated as a post‑conviction petition | The court held the trial court did not err in treating it as a post‑conviction petition and finding it untimely |
| Whether Ward’s sentence was void because the court failed to specify which counts required mandatory prison time | Sentences for rape were mandatory by operation of law; absence of explicit “mandatory” language in the record does not render the sentence void | The sentencing entry effectively imposed a blanket mandatory 38‑year term and the court’s post‑hearing entry violated due process; thus the sentence is void and not subject to res judicata | The court held the sentence was not void; prior appellate rulings addressed and rejected these claims and res judicata bars relitigation |
| Whether failure to advise a defendant that a term is "mandatory" renders a sentence void | Failure to use the word “mandatory” does not affect the validity of a sentence that is within statutory range and required by law | Ward argued that lack of contemporaneous notice of mandatory nature deprived him of due process and made the sentence void | The court followed precedent holding such a failure does not render the sentence void or illegal |
| Whether preclusion (res judicata) applies to Ward’s current claims | Ward’s present claims were or could have been raised earlier and thus are barred | Ward contended the sentence was void and therefore not subject to res judicata | The court held res judicata applies; prior appeals already addressed these issues |
Key Cases Cited
- No official‑reporter citations for the Ohio cases cited in the provided opinion excerpt were supplied. The opinion relies primarily on Ohio appellate decisions and the Ohio Supreme Court’s treatment of post‑conviction petitions and the narrow void‑sentence doctrine, but the excerpt does not include Bluebook reporter citations for those authorities.