State v. Wilson, 2015 Ohio 5465

Orlando Wilson was indicted on multiple fourth-degree felonies (grand theft, safecracking, receiving stolen property) in Lake County; he pleaded guilty to two counts of grand theft and one count of safecracking, with the remaining counts nolled.
At sentencing the court denied his request to withdraw the plea and imposed a 30-month prison term, ordered to run consecutively with a separate Cuyahoga County sentence.
Wilson appealed; this court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal (2014).
Over a year later he filed a Crim.R. 52(B) Notice of Plain Error in the trial court, alleging sentencing errors: failure to merge allied offenses, lack of authority to impose consecutive sentences with the Cuyahoga case, and failure to make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.
The trial court denied the Rule 52(B) notice; Wilson appealed that denial to this court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether allied-offense/merger claim can be raised post-appeal	State: barred by res judicata because it was or could have been raised on direct appeal	Wilson: sentencing error; should be reviewable despite prior appeal	Barred by res judicata; not considered on merits
Whether consecutive sentence with Cuyahoga case was unauthorized	State: challenge must be raised on direct appeal; not jurisdictional	Wilson: consecutive order void, can be attacked anytime	Consecutive-sentencing error is not void; res judicata bars review
Whether court failed to make statutorily required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings	State: procedural sentencing claim; could have been raised on direct appeal	Wilson: omission renders sentence void and reviewable anytime	Failure to make findings does not render sentence void here; res judicata applies
Whether any sentencing error here creates a void sentence escaping res judicata	State: only sentences missing statutorily mandated terms are void	Wilson: argues his sentence is void so reviewable now	Court holds sentence voidness exception not met; claims are barred

State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (doctrine of res judicata bars claims raised or capable of being raised on direct appeal)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (void-sentence doctrine; generally sentencing errors do not render sentence void)
State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (sentence lacking statutorily mandated term can be void)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (consecutive-sentence challenges must be raised on direct appeal)
Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345 (allied-offense claims are nonjurisdictional and barred by res judicata)