res judicata does not preclude review doctrine in Ohio

2011(State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 , 2007-Ohio-3250 , 868 N.E.2d 961 , syllabus, modified.) Although the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence.

2011(State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 , 2007-Ohio-3250 , 868 N.E.2d 961 , syllabus, modified.) Although the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence.

2019The Fisher Court went on to "hold that although the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence." Id. {¶ 15} Peoples has appealed from a decision denying his motion to vacate a void sentence.

2019No. 2007-T-0022, 2008-Ohio-2128, ¶ 21 , quoting Brick Processors, Inc. v. Culbertson, 2 Ohio App.3d 478 (8th Dist.1981), paragraph one of the syllabus (" '[P]rinciples of res judicata prevent relief on successive, similar motions raising issues which were or could have been raised originally.' "). {¶ 14} "[T]he doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence." State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238, ¶ 1 ; State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 , 2013-Ohio-5014, ¶ 9 , citing Fischer at ¶ 40 ("[A]bsent a timely appeal, res judicata generally allows only the cor

2018Warren No. CA2017-07-104, 2018-Ohio-803, ¶ 33-34 , citing State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238, ¶ 40 . {¶ 25} In the present case, Rarden's sentence is not void, nor contrary to law.

2018Warren No. CA2017-07-104, 2018-Ohio-803, ¶ 33-34 , citing State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238, ¶ 40 . {¶ 15} With regard to the first assignment of error, we find the trial court did not err by denying Singletary's motion to dismiss on the basis that retroactive application of Megan's Law is unconstitutional.

2018State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 , 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967).

2016State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967); Fischer at paragraph three of the syllabus ("[a]lthough the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence"). {¶15} In his appellate brief at 8, appellant makes the specious argument: "In failing to ever raise this issue [postrelease control] over the last several years, it must be concluded that the government has 'waived' the ability to NOW raise this issue," and therefo

2011Further, “[t]he scope of an appeal from a resentencing hearing in which a mandatory term of postrelease control is imposed is limited to issues arising at the resentencing hearing.” Id. at paragraph four of the syllabus. {¶11} Wharton has appealed from his resentencing hearing.

2011Accordingly, “[a]lthough the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void 7 sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence.” Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus.

2021Since that time, however, the Supreme Court of Ohio has changed course concerning the issue of void and voidable judgments, which was the basis of the above holding in Fisher, i.e., that “a sentence that is not in accordance with statutorily mandated terms is void.” Fisher at ¶ 8, citing State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008-Ohio- 1197, 884 N.E.2d 568 , ¶ 14.

2020Moreover, “void sentences are not precluded from appellate review by principles of res judicata and may be reviewed at any time, on direct appeal or by collateral attack. * * * [A]lthough the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence.” State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , ¶ 40, overruled on other grounds by State v. Harper, 2020-Ohio-2913 . {¶12} Here, the September 13, 2018

2019Lorain No. 03CA008386, 2004-Ohio-3245, ¶ 7-8 . {¶9} However, “the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence[.]” State v. Allshouse, 9th Dist.

2019Summit No. 27901, 2016-Ohio-5210, ¶ 9 , citing State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , paragraph three of the syllabus.

2019Fischer also specified, “although the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 40. {¶ 11} “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due -6- process that was raised or could have b

2019Fischer also specified, “although the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 40. {¶ 11} “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due -6- process that was raised or could have b

2019Montgomery No. 27923, 2019-Ohio-227, ¶12 , explained that “[a]lthough the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence.” Id., quoting State v. Fisher, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶26} Mr. Krug is simply not entitled to a fourth bite from the “proverbial apple,” and thus, his assignments of error are overruled. {¶27} The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas

2019Montgomery No. 27923, 2019-Ohio-227, ¶12 , explained that “[a]lthough the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence.” Id., quoting State v. Fisher, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶26} Mr. Krug is simply not entitled to a fourth bite from the “proverbial apple,” and thus, his assignments of error are overruled. {¶27} The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas

2019No. 2007-T-0022, 2008-Ohio-2128, ¶ 21 , quoting Brick Processors, Inc. v. Culbertson, 2 Ohio App.3d 478 (8th Dist.1981), paragraph one of the syllabus (" '[P]rinciples of res judicata prevent relief on successive, similar motions raising issues which were or could have been raised originally.' "). {¶ 14} "[T]he doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence." State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238, ¶ 1 ; State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 , 2013-Ohio-5014, ¶ 9 , citing Fischer at ¶ 40 ("[A]bsent a timely appeal, res judicata generally allows only the cor

2019No. 2007-T-0022, 2008-Ohio-2128, ¶ 21 , quoting Brick Processors, Inc. v. Culbertson, 2 Ohio App.3d 478 (8th Dist.1981), paragraph one of the syllabus (" '[P]rinciples of res judicata prevent relief on successive, similar motions raising issues which were or could have been raised originally.' "). {¶ 14} "[T]he doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence." State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238, ¶ 1 ; State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 , 2013-Ohio-5014, ¶ 9 , citing Fischer at ¶ 40 ("[A]bsent a timely appeal, res judicata generally allows only the cor

2016State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 , 2012-Ohio-1111 , 967 N.E.2d 718 , ¶¶ 18-19 (stating that court must provide “statutorily compliant notification to a defendant regarding post release control at the time of sentencing, including notifying the defendant of the details of the post release control and the consequences of violating post release control.” When a court fails to comply with either the sentencing hearing or sentencing entry notification, “the offending portion of the sentence is void, must be set aside, and is subject to review and correction.” State v. Triplett, 4th Dist. 2 Simil

2016State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 , 2012-Ohio-1111 , 967 N.E.2d 718 , ¶¶ 18-19 (stating that court must provide “statutorily compliant notification to a defendant regarding post release control at the time of sentencing, including notifying the defendant of the details of the post release control and the consequences of violating post release control.” When a court fails to comply with either the sentencing hearing or sentencing entry notification, “the offending portion of the sentence is void, must be set aside, and is subject to review and correction.” State v. Triplett, 4th Dist. 2 Simil

2016Montgomery No. 25776, 2014-Ohio-2088, ¶ 9 .

2014Carnail v. McCormick, 126 Ohio St.3d 124 , 2010-Ohio-2671 , 931 N.E.2d 110 , the Ohio Supreme Court subsequently held that, “[a]lthough the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence.” State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

2014Carnail v. McCormick, 126 Ohio St.3d 124 , 2010-Ohio-2671 , 931 N.E.2d 110 , the Ohio Supreme Court subsequently held that, “[a]lthough the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence.” State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

2011State v. Martello, 97 Ohio St.3d 398 , 2002-Ohio-6661 at ¶¶ 24-26 .

2011State v. Martello, 97 Ohio St.3d 398 , 2002-Ohio-6661 at ¶¶ 24-26 .

2011The issue is also pending in State v. Lester, which we agreed to review on order of a certified conflict and on a discretionary appeal, case Nos. 2010-1007, 126 Ohio Coshocton County, Case No. 09-CA-21 7 St.3d 1581, 2010-Ohio-4542 , 934 N.E.2d 354 and 2010-1372, 126 Ohio St.3d 1579 , 2010-Ohio-4542 , 934 N.E.2d 353 ."1 {¶25} In State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , paragraphs three and four of the syllabus, a case involving the failure to properly sentence on postrelease control, the Supreme Court of Ohio held the scope of an appeal from a resentencing hearing is limited to is

2011The issue is also pending in State v. Lester, which we agreed to review on order of a certified conflict and on a discretionary appeal, case Nos. 2010-1007, 126 Ohio Coshocton County, Case No. 09-CA-21 7 St.3d 1581, 2010-Ohio-4542 , 934 N.E.2d 354 and 2010-1372, 126 Ohio St.3d 1579 , 2010-Ohio-4542 , 934 N.E.2d 353 ."1 {¶25} In State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , paragraphs three and four of the syllabus, a case involving the failure to properly sentence on postrelease control, the Supreme Court of Ohio held the scope of an appeal from a resentencing hearing is limited to is

2011The issue is also pending in State v. Lester, which we agreed to review on order of a certified conflict and on a discretionary appeal, case Nos. 2010-1007, 126 Ohio Coshocton County, Case No. 09-CA-21 7 St.3d 1581, 2010-Ohio-4542 , 934 N.E.2d 354 and 2010-1372, 126 Ohio St.3d 1579 , 2010-Ohio-4542 , 934 N.E.2d 353 ."1 {¶25} In State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , paragraphs three and four of the syllabus, a case involving the failure to properly sentence on postrelease control, the Supreme Court of Ohio held the scope of an appeal from a resentencing hearing is limited to is

2011The issue is also pending in State v. Lester, which we agreed to review on order of a certified conflict and on a discretionary appeal, case Nos. 2010-1007, 126 Ohio Coshocton County, Case No. 09-CA-21 7 St.3d 1581, 2010-Ohio-4542 , 934 N.E.2d 354 and 2010-1372, 126 Ohio St.3d 1579 , 2010-Ohio-4542 , 934 N.E.2d 353 ."1 {¶25} In State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , paragraphs three and four of the syllabus, a case involving the failure to properly sentence on postrelease control, the Supreme Court of Ohio held the scope of an appeal from a resentencing hearing is limited to is

2011The scope of an appeal from a resentencing hearing in which a mandatory term of postrelease control is imposed is limited to issues arising at the resentencing hearing.” {¶ 20} On October 13, 2011, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in State v. Lester, __ Ohio St.3d ___, 2011-Ohio-5204 .