State v. Plassman

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Todd Plassman's motion to correct an allegedly illegal or void sentence. The court held that the motion constituted an untimely or successive post-conviction petition under R.C. 2953.23 and that Plassman failed to satisfy the statutory requirements permitting review.

Holdings

1. A motion challenging the indictment and sentence, regardless of its label as a motion to correct an illegal or void sentence, is treated as a successive post-conviction petition.
2. A petitioner's failure to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A) deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of an untimely or successive post-conviction petition.
3. Plassman did not satisfy either requirement of R.C. 2953.23(A), so the trial court properly denied his untimely successive petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plassman's motion to correct an illegal or void sentence was an untimely or successive petition for post-conviction relief governed by R.C. 2953.23.
2. Whether Plassman satisfied either statutory exception under R.C. 2953.23(A) permitting the trial court to entertain the untimely or successive petition.
3. Whether the trial court properly denied the motion.

Disposition

affirmed