State v. Wright, 2016 Ohio 3542

Ramon Jamal Wright was convicted in 1996 of two counts of aggravated murder and other offenses; sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 30 years. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Over the years Wright filed multiple collateral attacks (post-conviction petitions, motions for new trial, motions for resentencing).
On June 8, 2015 Wright filed a pro se "motion for resentencing based on void judgment," arguing the trial court failed at sentencing (Oct. 1, 1996) to comply with R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a) by notifying him that failure to pay court costs could result in court-ordered community service.
The State opposed; the trial court denied Wright’s motion and Wright appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
The court held the community-service notification provision relied on did not apply because it went into effect in 2003, years after Wright’s 1996 sentence, and treated Wright’s filing as an untimely, successive post-conviction petition governed by R.C. 2953.23.
Wright’s petition failed to satisfy R.C. 2953.23(A) because he neither showed he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts nor pointed to a new retroactive Supreme Court right; the trial court therefore lacked authority to consider the merits and denial was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wright’s 1996 sentence is void for failure to notify under R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a)	Wright: Sentencing court failed to notify him that unpaid costs could lead to court-ordered community service, rendering sentence void and requiring resentencing	State: The statutory notification did not apply at the time of sentencing and failure to give it (if any) does not render the sentence void; procedure bars relief	Denied. The notification statute became effective in 2003 and is inapplicable to a 1996 sentence; Wright’s claim does not create a void sentence.
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to imposition of court costs without the community-service notice	Wright: Trial counsel should have objected; failure deprived him of effective assistance of counsel	State: Even if counsel did not object, the underlying statutory notice is inapplicable to 1996 sentencing; collateral relief is barred	Denied. Claim treated as collateral and successive; not cognizable under R.C. 2953.23 without meeting statutory exceptions.
Whether plain error or due-process violation occurred by imposing costs without the notice	Wright: Imposition of costs without required notice violated due process / was plain error	State: No retroactive application and procedural bars prevent relief	Denied. Court finds procedural bar and inapplicability of statute; no relief.

No officially reported (Westlaw/Lexis-only or slip) authorities with reporter citations were relied upon in the opinion. (The court cited several appellate slip opinions and prior Ninth District decisions but did not cite cases appearing in official reporters.)