State v. Majid

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 172

Syllabus

Irregular motion; petition for postconviction relief; untimely; void; voidable; limited remand; appellate court mandate; res judicata. Judgments affirmed. The trial court properly treated the defendant's motion, made years after his direct appeal, as a petition for postconviction relief. The petition was untimely and not subject to the timeliness exception under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1). The trial court's resentencing judgment was not void. Further, because the trial court had jurisdiction over the case and the defendant, any potential sentencing error. would be deemed voidable, and a challenge to a voidable sentence via a postconviction petition is impermissible. The trial court complied with the appellate court's mandate for the limited remand. The mandate was not for a de novo resentencing hearing; rather, it was for the limited purpose of resentencing the defendant as to each of the firearm specifications. The defendant's assignments of error alleging various trial errors have no relation to the judgments appealed from and in any event are barred under the doctrine of res judicata.