State v. Williams, 2012 Ohio 3401

Williams pled guilty to five-count indictment for aggravated trafficking and possession of drugs; trial court sentenced with concurrent terms totaling eight years in 2010; Williams did not appeal the 2010 judgment entry; he filed an untimely postconviction petition under R.C. 2953.21/2953.23 on August 30, 2011; the state acknowledged allied-offense issues between Counts 2 and 4 and sought resentencing; the court merged Counts 2 and 4 and Counts 3 and 5, requiring the state to elect which counts to sentence on; Williams was resentenced on October 26, 2011; a new November 10, 2011 judgment entry followed but still showed eight years; the appellate court vacated the 2011 judgment and left the 2010 judgment intact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the postconviction petition and resentence Williams under 2953.23	Williams argued the petition should be entertained under 2953.23.	State contended petition merited consideration; merger issues were addressed.	No; petition untimely and failed 2953.23 requirements; court lacked jurisdiction.
Whether the trial court had authority to modify the 2010 judgment entry	Williams asserted merger/ sentences could be reconsidered.	State supported resentence based on merger; court could modify.	No; court lacked authority to modify a final judgment; the 2011 judgment is void.

State v. Hall, 2007-Ohio-947 (4th Dist. No. 06CA17, 2007) (untimely postconviction petitions dismissal)
State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 (2010-Ohio-5705) (void vs. voidable judgments; limited exceptions)
State v. Carlisle, 131 Ohio St.3d 127 (2011-Ohio-6553) (inherent authority to modify judgments; only void or clerical errors excused)
State v. Franklin, 2009-Ohio-6831 (4th Dist. No. 09CA7, 2009) (vacate void judgments framework)
State v. Martin, 2010-Ohio-5394 (9th Dist. No. 10CA0007, 2010) (void vs voidable judgment distinction)