66 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2026 19 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bushgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 , 2002-Ohio-3993 , 773 N.E.2d 522, ¶ 13 (stating that a motion to withdraw a plea filed under Crim.R. 32.1 is not a collateral challenge, because it is filed in the underlying criminal case and attacks the withdrawal of the plea). 2022See State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 , 2002-Ohio-3993 , 773 N.E.2d 522, ¶ 13 (stating that a motion to withdraw a plea filed under Crim.R. 32.1 is not a collateral challenge, because it is filed in the underlying criminal case and attacks the withdrawal of the plea). | 5 | 14 |
State v. Parker (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2026Filing a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 “is the exclusive remedy by which a person may bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case . . . .” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2953.21(K); see also State v. Parker, 157 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2019-Ohio-3848 , 137 N.E.3d 1151 , ¶ 33 (lead opinion), citing State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2008-Ohio-545 , 882 N.E.2d 431 , ¶ 12. 2024“With the exception of an appeal, a petition for postconviction relief is ‘the exclusive remedy by which a person may bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case.’” State v. Parker, 2019-Ohio-3848 , ¶15, quoting R.C. 2953.21(K). | 3 | 6 |
State v. Simpkinsgreen2 sentences2013And when the matter has come to a court’s attention, whether on direct appeal or in a collateral challenge, the court “cannot ignore” the matter, State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 , 2009-Ohio-1577 , 906 N.E.2d 422, ¶ 12 ; see also State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008-Ohio-1197 , 884 N.E.2d 568 , ¶ 23, and “the offending portion of the sentence is subject to review and correction.” State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , paragraph one of the syllabus and ¶ 27. 2012But regardless of a case’s procedural posture, when a sentence is void to the extent that it was not imposed in conformity with the statutory mandates concerning postrelease control, and the matter has come to a court’s attention, whether on direct appeal or in a collateral challenge, the court “cannot ignore” the matter, State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 , 2009-Ohio-1577 , 906 N.E.2d 422, ¶ 12 ; see also State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008-Ohio-1197 , 884 N.E.2d 568 , ¶ 23, and “the offending portion 12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS of the sentence is subject to review and | 3 | 3 |
State v. Fischergreen2 sentences2013And when the matter has come to a court’s attention, whether on direct appeal or in a collateral challenge, the court “cannot ignore” the matter, State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 , 2009-Ohio-1577 , 906 N.E.2d 422, ¶ 12 ; see also State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008-Ohio-1197 , 884 N.E.2d 568 , ¶ 23, and “the offending portion of the sentence is subject to review and correction.” State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , paragraph one of the syllabus and ¶ 27. 2013And when the matter has come to a court’s attention, whether on direct appeal or in a collateral challenge, the court “cannot ignore” the matter, State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 , 2009-Ohio-1577 , 906 N.E.2d 422, ¶ 12 ; see also State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008-Ohio-1197 , 884 N.E.2d 568 , ¶ 23, and “the offending portion of the sentence is subject to review and correction.” State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , paragraph one of the syllabus and ¶ 27. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bushgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 , 2002-Ohio-3993 , 773 N.E.2d 522, ¶ 13 (stating that a motion to withdraw a plea filed under Crim.R. 32.1 is not a collateral challenge, because it is filed in the underlying criminal case and attacks the withdrawal of the plea). 2014In support, appellant relies on the following dicta from the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St. 3d 235 , 2002-Ohio-3993 , ¶ 13: R.C. 2953.21(J), part of the postconviction relief statutory scheme, provides that "the remedy set forth in this section is the exclusive remedy by which a person may bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case***." Given that a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion is not collateral but is filed in the underlying criminal case and that it targets the withdrawal of a plea, it is not a "collateral challenge to | 2 | 9 |
State v. Schleegreen2 sentences2026Filing a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 “is the exclusive remedy by which a person may bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case . . . .” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2953.21(K); see also State v. Parker, 157 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2019-Ohio-3848 , 137 N.E.3d 1151 , ¶ 33 (lead opinion), citing State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2008-Ohio-545 , 882 N.E.2d 431 , ¶ 12. 2022Filing a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 “is the exclusive remedy by which a person may bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case * * *.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2953.21(K); see also State v. Parker, 157 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2019-Ohio-3848 , 137 N.E.3d 1151 , ¶ 33 (lead opinion), citing State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2008-Ohio-545 , 882 N.E.2d 431 , ¶ 12. | 2 | 7 |
State v. Calhoungreen2 sentences2021Id. at ¶ 14. {¶25} “R.C. 2953.21(K), part of the postconviction relief statutory scheme, provides that ‘the remedy set forth in this section is the exclusive remedy by which a person may bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case * * *.’” Id. at ¶ 13; see State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 281 , 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999) (“[A] postconviction proceeding is * * * a collateral civil attack on the judgment”); Black’s Law Dictionary 255 (7th Ed.Rev.1999) (defining “collateral attack” as “[a]n attack on a judgment entered in a different proceeding”). 7 2021Id. at ¶ 14. {¶25} “R.C. 2953.21(K), part of the postconviction relief statutory scheme, provides that ‘the remedy set forth in this section is the exclusive remedy by which a person may bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case * * *.’” Id. at ¶ 13; see State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 281 , 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999) (“[A] postconviction proceeding is * * * a collateral civil attack on the judgment”); Black’s Law Dictionary 255 (7th Ed.Rev.1999) (defining “collateral attack” as “[a]n attack on a judgment entered in a different proceeding”). 7 | 1 | 7 |
State v. Bethel (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2025State v. Struckman, 2021-Ohio-1043, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.); State v. Bethel, 2022-Ohio-783, ¶ 44 (noting “a motion for a new trial is not a collateral challenge - a motion for a new trial is an attempt to void or correct the judgment as provided by law under Crim.R. 33”). 2023More recently, the Supreme Court, declined an invitation to conclude that Bush was wrongly decided on this point, and instead held “that * * * a motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial is not a collateral challenge under R.C. 2953.21(K).” (Emphasis added.) State v. Bethel, 167 Ohio St.3d 362 , 2022-Ohio-783 , ¶ 46-47. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Braggsgreen2 sentences2025(Cleaned up.) Id. at ¶ 44; see Braggs, 2013-Ohio-3364, at ¶ 6 (1st Dist.) (holding a declaratory judgment action cannot be used as “a means for mounting a collateral challenge to a criminal conviction.”). {¶11} Here, Williams’s complaint for declaratory judgment requested that his convictions be vacated because of the unconstitutionality of the statute defining sexual conduct and he requested that he immediately be released from prison. 2014Id., citing Wilson v. Collins, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Eckleygreen2 sentences2023No. 18 COA 014 , 2019-Ohio-6, ¶ 22 , citing State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 , 2002-Ohio-3993 , ¶ 13. 2021State v. Eckley, 2019- Ohio-6, 128 N.E.3d 832, ¶ 22 (5th Dist.). {¶32} Mr. Cox cites to State v. Hunter, 8th Dist. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Randlett, 06ap-1073 (7-12-2007)green2 sentences2020Id. 2007See, State v. Randlett , Franklin App. No. 06AP-1073, 2007-Ohio-3546 (a petition of post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 and Crim.R. 35 is the exclusive remedy by which a defendant may bring a collateral challenge to his conviction or sentence). {¶ 20} Thus, we overrule both Appellant's Assignments of Error. {¶ 21} Accordingly, the judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2025Furthermore, Civ.R. 58(B) does not apply to criminal judgments. -8- State v. Mitchell, 2017-Ohio-8440, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.), citing State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Struckmangreen1 sentence2025State v. Struckman, 2021-Ohio-1043, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.); State v. Bethel, 2022-Ohio-783, ¶ 44 (noting “a motion for a new trial is not a collateral challenge - a motion for a new trial is an attempt to void or correct the judgment as provided by law under Crim.R. 33”). | 1 | 1 |
Berk v. Matthewsgreen1 sentence2025In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135 , 137–38 (1991), citing Berk v. Matthews, ATHENS, 24CA27 13 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 169 (1990). {¶22} Although a petition for postconviction relief permits a person to bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case, it does not provide a petitioner a second opportunity to litigate a conviction. | 1 | 1 |
Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc.green1 sentence2025Scope of Appeal {¶ 13} “[A]n appellate court limits its review to issues actually decided by the trial court in its judgment.” Lycan v. Cleveland, 2016-Ohio-422, ¶ 21 , citing Bowen v. Kil- Kare, Inc., 63 Ohio St.3d 84, 89 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bolesgreen1 sentence2025State v. Boles, 2017-Ohio-786, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2024See also State v. Lewis, 2021-Ohio-4264, ¶16 (11th Dist.); State v. Dudas, 2022-Ohio-1637, ¶ 33 (11th Dist.). {¶21} The motion relevant to this appeal was filed (1) subsequent to appellant’s direct appeal; (2) claimed his constitutional right to due process was violated; and (3) prayed his sentence would be corrected. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dudasgreen1 sentence2024See also State v. Lewis, 2021-Ohio-4264, ¶16 (11th Dist.); State v. Dudas, 2022-Ohio-1637, ¶ 33 (11th Dist.). {¶21} The motion relevant to this appeal was filed (1) subsequent to appellant’s direct appeal; (2) claimed his constitutional right to due process was violated; and (3) prayed his sentence would be corrected. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Culbersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Billitergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bistrickygreen | 1 | 1 |
| In the Matter of Merryman, Unpublished Decision (6-14-2004)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Newbern, 06ap-928 (4-3-2007)green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Reynolds
green
2 sentences2018No. 06AP-1229, 2007-Ohio- 4521, ¶ 8, citing State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 160 , 1997-Ohio-304 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997). *** Appellant challenged the conviction and sentence he is currently serving, and R.C. 2953.21 "is the exclusive remedy by which a person may bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case." R.C. 2953.21(K). 2018No. 06AP-1229, 2007-Ohio- 4521, ¶ 8, citing State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 160 , 1997-Ohio-304 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997). *** Appellant challenged the conviction and sentence he is currently serving, and R.C. 2953.21 "is the exclusive remedy by which a person may bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case." R.C. 2953.21(K). | 8 | 2007–2025 |
State v. Harper (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2021Franklin No. 18AP-139, 2020-Ohio-5154, ¶ 7 , citing State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480 , 2020-Ohio-2913 , ¶ 18 (“[t]he res judicata doctrine does not * * * preclude a collateral challenge to a void judgment”). 2021Franklin No. 18AP-139, 2020-Ohio-5154, ¶ 7 , citing State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480 , 2020-Ohio-2913 , ¶ 18 (“[t]he res judicata doctrine does not * * * preclude a collateral challenge to a void judgment”). | 4 | 2020–2023 |
State v. Reynolds
green
2 sentences2018No. 06AP-1229, 2007-Ohio- 4521, ¶ 8, citing State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 160 , 1997-Ohio-304 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997). *** Appellant challenged the conviction and sentence he is currently serving, and R.C. 2953.21 "is the exclusive remedy by which a person may bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case." R.C. 2953.21(K). 2014Richland County, Case No. 13CA18 8 {¶23} This dicta, as Justice Cook acknowledged at ¶ 10-11 in Bush, cannot be read in a vacuum, but is tempered with the Supreme Court of Ohio's reaffirmance of its decision in State v. Larry Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 , 1997-Ohio-304 (post-sentence motion to withdraw guilty plea is separate and apart from a postconviction relief petition and is a distinct avenue for relief). | 4 | 2008–2018 |
State v. Boswell
green
2 sentences2013And when the matter has come to a court’s attention, whether on direct appeal or in a collateral challenge, the court “cannot ignore” the matter, State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 , 2009-Ohio-1577 , 906 N.E.2d 422, ¶ 12 ; see also State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008-Ohio-1197 , 884 N.E.2d 568 , ¶ 23, and “the offending portion of the sentence is subject to review and correction.” State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , paragraph one of the syllabus and ¶ 27. 2013And when the matter has come to a court’s attention, whether on direct appeal or in a collateral challenge, the court “cannot ignore” the matter, State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 , 2009-Ohio-1577 , 906 N.E.2d 422, ¶ 12 ; see also State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008-Ohio-1197 , 884 N.E.2d 568 , ¶ 23, and “the offending portion of the sentence is subject to review and correction.” State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , paragraph one of the syllabus and ¶ 27. | 3 | 2011–2013 |
Ashe v. Swenson
green
2 sentences1982Neither does the doctrine of collateral. estoppel as set forth in Ashe v. Swenson, supra, and Brown v. Ohio (1977), 432 U.S. 161 , preclude the second prosecution. 1973The syllabus of that case reads as follows: “The extraordinary original jurisdiction granted to an Ohio appellate court may be invoked to adjudicate the right of an accused to the benefit of the doctrine of collateral .estoppel, made applicable to the state as being within the federal constitutional right against double jeopardy by Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436 .” While Owens was brought in habeas corpus, the Supreme Court made no reference thereto in the syllabus but, rather, referred to “the extraordinary original jurisdiction” of the Court of Appeals. | 2 | 1973–1982 |
State v. Hill
green
1 sentence2026(No. 2024-0352—Submitted October 29, 2025—Decided April 23, 2026.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, No. 2023-T-0039, 2023-Ohio-4486 . __________________ KENNEDY, C.J., authored the opinion of the court, which FISCHER, DEWINE, HAWKINS, and SHANAHAN, JJ., joined. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10847063
neutral
2 sentences2026SLIP OPINION NO. 2026-OHIO-1427 THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. HILL, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Hill, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1427 .] Criminal law—R.C. 2953.21 provides the exclusive mechanism by which a person may bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case—A capital defendant may not collaterally challenge a prior judgment denying his petition for postconviction relief by filing a motion under Civ.R. 60(B)—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and cause reman 2026SLIP OPINION NO. 2026-OHIO-1427 THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. HILL, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Hill, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1427 .] Criminal law—R.C. 2953.21 provides the exclusive mechanism by which a person may bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case—A capital defendant may not collaterally challenge a prior judgment denying his petition for postconviction relief by filing a motion under Civ.R. 60(B)—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and cause reman | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Lycan v. Cleveland (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2025Scope of Appeal {¶ 13} “[A]n appellate court limits its review to issues actually decided by the trial court in its judgment.” Lycan v. Cleveland, 2016-Ohio-422, ¶ 21 , citing Bowen v. Kil- Kare, Inc., 63 Ohio St.3d 84, 89 (1992). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re Jane Doe 1
green
1 sentence2025In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135 , 137–38 (1991), citing Berk v. Matthews, ATHENS, 24CA27 13 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 169 (1990). {¶22} Although a petition for postconviction relief permits a person to bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case, it does not provide a petitioner a second opportunity to litigate a conviction. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2025“With the exception of an appeal, a petition for postconviction relief is ‘the exclusive remedy by which a person may bring a collateral challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case.’ R.C. 2953.21(K).” Id. {¶ 11} According to R.C. 2953.21(A)(2), except as otherwise provided in R.C. 2953.23, a petition for postconviction relief must be filed within 365 days of the date when the transcript is filed in a direct appeal or, if no direct appeal is taken, within 365 days of the expiration of the time for filing an appeal. {¶ 12} R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) provides, in pertinent pa | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Welty v. Casper
green
1 sentence2023Nos. 13AP-618 and 13AP-714, 2014-Ohio-2903, ¶ 11 ; citing Hale v. State, 55 Ohio St. 210 , 215, 45 N.E. 199 (1896). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Noling
neutral
1 sentence2022The state points to State v. Frase, 87 Ohio St.3d 1412 , 717 N.E.2d 345 (1999), in which this court referred to a motion for leave to file an untimely motion for a new trial as “a civil, post-conviction matter.” And it points to State v. Cowan, 8th Dist. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| White v. Konteh neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Morgan v. Eads green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Castro v. United States green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Jennings green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Perry green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Gideon v. Wainwright green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Montgomery v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Lupardus, 07ca46 (5-30-2008) neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Lingo v. State green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Lee, Unpublished Decision (12-1-2005) green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Burke, Unpublished Decision (9-7-2006) neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Ringer neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Lott green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Lott green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Brown green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Kelly, 07 Ma 27 (11-16-2007) green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Milanovich green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Nichols green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Murnahan red | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Blakeman v. Condorodis green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Brown v. Ohio green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.