State v. Watts, 2016 Ohio 7072

Matthew K. Watts pled guilty (Sept. 12, 2012) to three counts of third-degree gross sexual imposition; two other counts were nolled.
Defense and prosecution jointly recommended, and the trial court imposed, concurrent terms on counts 1 and 2 and a consecutive term on count 3 for a total 10-year sentence; no direct appeal was filed.
Over the following years Watts filed multiple post-judgment motions: a denied motion for leave to appeal, a denied motion to modify sentence, a denied petition for postconviction relief, and finally a Crim.R. 52(B) motion asserting plain error construed by the court as a petition for postconviction relief.
The trial court denied the Crim.R. 52(B)/postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing; Watts timely appealed that denial.
The trial court and this appellate court treated Watts’s claims (including merger, consecutive/max sentence, proportionality, and challenge to mandatory sentencing) under res judicata and postconviction standards and affirmed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by not conducting a hearing to determine if the third charge merged (similar import)	State: motion construed as postconviction and merger claims are barred by res judicata when no direct appeal taken	Watts: court should have held a hearing and determined whether counts merged for sentencing	Held: Merger claim barred by res judicata; no hearing required; denial affirmed
Whether the trial court abused discretion by imposing maximum consecutive sentences	State: sentencing claims could have been raised on direct appeal and are barred by res judicata	Watts: sentencing was excessive/abusive and plain error occurred	Held: Sentencing claims are barred by res judicata; court did not abuse discretion
Whether the sentence is disproportionate and imposes unnecessary burden on the State	State: proportionality claim could have been raised earlier; res judicata bars it	Watts: sentence is disproportionate and burdensome	Held: Claim barred by res judicata; no relief granted
Whether the sentencing court erred by imposing a mandatory sentence contrary to Ohio law	State: mandatory/merit-based sentencing claim could have been raised on direct appeal	Watts: sentence was mandatory and illegal under Ohio law	Held: Challenge is non-jurisdictional and barred by res judicata; sentencing affirmed

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
Calhoun v. State, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (postconviction petitioner not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing)
Cole v. State, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)
Gondor v. State, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (standards for reviewing postconviction relief denials)
Szefcyk v. State, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (postconviction petitions may be dismissed without hearing when claims are barred by res judicata)
Perry v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (principles underlying finality and res judicata in postconviction context)