State v. Gonzales

Citations

• 2021 Ohio 680

Syllabus

JURISDICTION — POSTRELEASE CONTROL — CRIM.R. 32(C) — POSTCONVICTION: The common pleas court had no jurisdiction to entertain postconviction motions seeking relief on the ground that sentences were not imposed in conformity with the statutes governing postrelease control: the motions were not reviewable under any postconviction proceeding provided by statute or rule the sentences were not correctable under the jurisdiction to correct a void judgment, because they were imposed by a court having personal and subject-matter jurisdiction and postrelease control was not correctable under Crim.R. 36, because postrelease control was not mentioned at the sentencing hearing. The common pleas court had no jurisdiction to entertain postconviction motions seeking relief on the grounds that defendant's judgments of conviction did not satisfy Crim.R. 32(C)'s requirements for final appealable orders: the motions alleged due-process violations and were thus reviewable under the standards provided by the postconviction statutes, R.C. 2953.21 et seq., but did not satisfy the statutes' jurisdictional requirements for entertaining a late postconviction claim the judgments of conviction could not have been vacated under the jurisdiction to correct a void judgment, because they were not void when they were entered by a court having personal and subject-matter jurisdiction and the motions did not demonstrate grounds for issuing revised judgments of conviction, when the clerk of courts' file-stamp was not required to be exclusively mechanical or state the hour of the day of filing, nothing on the face of the challenged file-stamp suggested that the substantive requirements of Crim.R. 32(C) and State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, had not been satisfied, and the file-stamp advanced the purpose of those requirements by putting defendant on notice that the time for appealing his convictions had begun to run.