[Cite as State v. Simons , 2013-Ohio-3654.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2013 CA 5

v. : T.C. NO. 09CR227 CARL RAY SIMONS : (Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant :

:

. . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 23rd day of August , 2013.

. . . . . . . . . . WESLEY E. SOMOGY, Atty. Reg. No. 0089037, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 200 N. Main Street, Urbana, Ohio 43078 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee CARL RAY SIMONS, #625933, P. O. Box 740, London, Ohio 43140 Defendant-Appellant

. . . . . . . . . . DONOVAN, J. {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Carl Simons, pro se, appeals a decision of the Champaign County Court of Common Pleas deny ing his petition for pos t-conviction relief.2 On December 31, 2012, the trial court issued a decision denying Simons’ petition for post-conviction relief. Simons filed a timely notice of appeal with this Court on January 23, 2013. {¶ 2} In January of 2010, Simons was convi cted of two counts of breaking and entering, in violation of R.C. 2911.13(A)(C), both felonies of the fifth degree; two counts of theft of property valued between $500.00 and $5,000.00, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1)(B)(2), both felonies of the fifth degree; one count of burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3)(C), a felony of the third degree; one count of grand th eft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1)(B)(4), a felony of the third de gree; one count of theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.03(A)(1)(B)(2), a misdemeanor of the fi rst degree; one count of having weapons under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2)(B ), a felony of the third degree; and one count of intimidation of a witn ess in a criminal case, in violation of R.C. 2921.04(B)(D), a felony of the third degree. The count of burglary contained a firearm specification. {¶ 3} Simons was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of nineteen years in prison. Although we vacated his conviction a nd sentence for intimidation of a witness, we affirmed the judgment against Simons in all other respects. State v. Simons , 193 Ohio App.3d 784, 2011-Ohio-2071, 954 N.E.2d 176 (2d Dist.) (hereinafter “ Simons I ”). {¶ 4} On December 21, 2010, Simons filed a petition for post-convi ction relief in which he asserted five claims , to wit: 1) ineffective assist ance of counsel; 2) denial of compulsory process and right to confront witnesses; 3) Brady violation, Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); 4) prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony to obtain Simons’ convictions; and 5) there was a criminal conspiracy between the3 trial judge and the prosecutor against Simons . On January 12, 2011, the State filed a motion for summary judgment regarding Simons’ pe tition. Simons filed an amendment to his petition on July 25, 2011. On October 23, 2012, S imons filed a supplement to his petition for post-conviction relief based on the new interpre tation of the allied offenses statute, R.C. 2941.25, found in State v. Johnson , 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061. In an entry filed on December 31, 2012, the tr ial court dismissed S imons’ petition, finding that he had failed to make a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the amended petition and supporting ma terials failed to set forth sufficient operative facts to establish substantive grounds for relief. {¶ 5} It is from this judgment that Simons now appeals. {¶ 6} Because they are interrelated, Simons’ first, fourth, and fifth assignments of error will be discussed together as follows: {¶ 7} “THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WHEN THE COURT SUMMARILY DISMISSED HIS PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT FIRST CONDUCTING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE OHIO AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS.” {¶ 8} “THE COMMON PLEAS COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN GRANTING THE STATE OF OHIO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE.” {¶ 9} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AFTER THE APPELLANT MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL DUE TO NEWLY4 DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.” {¶ 10} Post-conviction relief is governed by R.C. 2953.21. The statute provides, in pertinent part, that: Any person who has been convicted of a criminal offense * * * and who claims that there was such a denial or infringement of the person's rights as to render the judgment void or voi dable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States, * * * may file a petition in the court that imposed sentence, stating the grounds for relief relied upon, and asking the court to vacate or set aside the judgment or sentence or to grant other appropriate relief. The petitioner may file a suppor ting affidavit and other documentary evidence in support of the claim for relief. R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a). {¶ 11} “A post[-]conviction proceeding is not an appeal of a criminal conviction, but, rather, a collateral civil attack on the judgment.” State v. Stefen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399, 410, 1994-Ohio-111, 639 N.E.2d 67. See, also, State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860 N.E.2d 77, ¶48. To prevail on a petition for post-conviction relief, the defendant must establish a violation of his constitutional rights which renders the judgment of conviction voi d or voidable. R.C. 2953.21. {¶ 12} The post-conviction relief statutes do “not expressly mandate a hearing for every post-conviction relie f petition and, therefore, a hearing is not automatically required.” State v. Jackson , 64 Ohio St.2d 107, 110, 413 N.E.2d 819 (1980) . Rather, in addressing a petition for post-conviction relief, a trial court plays a gatekeeping role as to whether a5 defendant will receive a hearing. Gondor at ¶51. A trial court may dismiss a petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing “whe re the petition, the supporting affidavits, the documentary evidence, the files, and the records do not demonstrate that petitioner set forth sufficient operative facts to estab lish substantive grounds for relief.” State v. Calhoun (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E. 2d 905 ( 1999), paragraph two of the syllabus; Gondor at ¶51. {¶ 13} We review the trial court’s denial of Simons’ petition for an abuse of discretion. Gondor at ¶52. As the Supreme Court of Ohio determined: “Abuse of discretion” has been defined as an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. (Internal citation omitted). It is to be expected that most instances of abuse of discretion will result in decisions that are simply unreasonable, rather than decisions that are unconscionable or arbitrary. A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision. It is not enough that the reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de novo , would not have found that reasoning process to be persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing reasoning processes that would support a contrary result. AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Redevelopment , 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990). {¶ 14} “ ‘[I]n a petition for post-conviction relief, which asse rts ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner bears the initial burden to submit evidentiary documents containing sufficient operative f acts to demonstrate the lack of competent counsel and that6 the defense was prejudiced by c ounsel's ineffectiveness.’ ” State v. Kapper , 5 Ohio St.3d 36, 38, 448 N.E.2d 823 (1983), quoting State v. Jackson , 64 Ohio St.2d 107, 413 N.E.2d 819 (1980). {¶ 15} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “in reviewing a petition for post-conviction relief f iled pursuant to R.C. 2953.21, a trial court should give due deference to affidavits sworn to under oa th and filed in support of th e petition, but may, in the sound exercise of discretion, judge their credibility in determining whether to accept the affidavits as true statements of fact.” State v. Calhoun , 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 281, at 284, 1999-Ohio-102, 714 N.E.2d 905. “The trial court may, under appropriate circumstances in post-conviction relief proceedings, deem affidavit testimony to lack credibility without first observing or examining the affiant.” Id

. {¶ 16} In evaluating the credibility of affida vits in post-conviction proceedings, a court should consider a ll relevant factors, including “(1) whether the judge reviewing the post-conviction relie f petition also presided at the tria l, (2) whether multiple affidavits contain nearly identical language, or otherwis e appear to have been drafted by the same person, (3) whether the affidavits contain or rely on hearsay, (4) whether the affiants are relatives of the petitioner, or otherwise interested in the su ccess of the petitioner's efforts, and (5) whether the affidavits contradict evidence proffere d by the defense at trial. Moreover, a trial court may find sworn testimony in an affida vit to be contradicted by evidence in the record by the same witness, or to be internally inconsistent, thereby weakening the credibility of that testimony.” Id . at 285. “Depending on the entire record, one or more of these or other factors may be sufficient to justify the conclusion that an affidavit7 asserting information outside the record lack s credibility. Such a decision should be within the discretion of the trial court.” Id

. {¶ 17} In order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that couns el’s performance was deficient and fell below an objective standard of reasonable repres entation, and that the defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s performance; that is, there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the defendant’s trial or proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley , 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989). “Hi ndsight is not permitted to distort the assessment of what was reasonable in light of counsel’s perspective at the time, and a debatable decision concerning tria l strategy cannot form the basi s of a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.” State v. Hill , 2d Dist. Greene No. 2004 CA 79, 2005-Ohio 3176. “When the evidence a defendant relies upon [sic] dehors the record that evidence must meet a threshold of cogency.” Id . “Cogent evidence is that which is more than ‘marginally significant’ and advances a claim ‘beyond mere hypothesis and desire for further discovery.’” Id

. {¶ 18} Initially, we note that Simons failed to provide a transcript of the proceedings below, pursuant to App. R. 9(B) ; a statement of the evidence under App. R. 9(C); or an agreed statement of the case under A pp. R. 9(D). It is the duty of the appellant to order from the court reporter a transcript of the proceedings or part thereof that the appellant considers necessary for inclusion in the record, and to file a copy of the order with the clerk. App.R. 9(B). Here, Simons failed to comply with that duty. These failures8 prevent us from effectively reviewing several of the evidentiary issues argued by Simons regarding the charged offenses. See Gevedon v. Gevedon , 167 Ohio App.3d 450, 2006-Ohio-3195, 855 N.E.2d 548, at ¶21. Moreover, because the record before us is insufficient to allow us to examine several of the asserted errors, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings in the trial court. See In re J.W. , 2d Dist. Greene No. 2006 CA 115, 2007-Ohio-2598, at ¶7. {¶ 19} Simons claims that his counsel was in effective for failing to call Karl Pullins Sr. to testify at trial, even t hough he was present during the trial. Simons asserts that he was not able until May of 2011 to locate and question Pullins Sr. regarding the testimony that he would have given had he been called by defense counsel. Speci fically, Simons argues that Pullin Sr. would have testified that he told the police when they recovered some of the stolen firearms from him that he had bought them from Terry Current and that Simons was not present nor was his name menti oned at the transaction. Simons characterizes Pullins Sr.’s averments as “critical new information” which “demonstrates the failure and ineffectiveness of trial counsel.” Upon revi ew, however, the statements in Pullins Sr.’s affidavit do not exonerate Simons of any of the crimes for which he was convicted and sentenced. The affidavit, if believed, merely establishes that Simons was not present when Current sold some of the stolen firearms to Pullins Sr., not that he wasn’t the perpetrator of the theft offenses and burglaries. We note that Simons argues that Current testified at trial that it was Simons who sold the stolen weapons to Pullins Sr. Simons, however, failed to file a copy of the trial transcript with his merit brief, and we are, therefore, unable to review Current’s testimony. Thus, defense counsel’s fa ilure to call Pullins Sr. to testify at Simons’9 trial was not ineffective assistance. {¶ 20} Simons also argues that trial counsel was deficient for failing to call Karl Pullins Jr. and Kourtney Longsdorf to testif y because they would have provided potentially exculpatory evidence that Sim ons was not involved in the theft of the firearms or the burglary of the Rock-N-Robin restaurant in Urbana, Ohio. Simons , however, failed to support his assertions regarding the potential testimony of Pullins Jr. and Longsdorf with an affidavit from either individual. Simons did attach a B.C.I. report to his petition for post-conviction relief which states that L ongsdorf gave untruthful answers during her polygraph examination regarding the burglary at the restaurant. Simons, however, fails to demonstrate how Longsdorf’s polygraph results exculpate him or what her testimony would have been had she been called to testify. Additionally, without an affidavit from Pullins Jr., Simons presents no evidence outside the record which would warrant an evidentiary hearing on the matter. {¶ 21} Simons argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call his wife, Judith Simons, to testify at trial. Simons ar gues that her testimony would have contradicted the testimony of Terry Current which implicated Simons in the theft of the firearms as noted in her affidavit attached to his petition for post-conviction relief. We note again that Simons failed to provide us with a transcript of the proceedings so we are unable to review Current’s trial testimony. Moreover, after reviewing Judith Simons’ affidavit, it is apparent that she would have testified that Simons c ould not have committed the offenses because he was with her at the time the burglaries occurre d. A trial court that discounts the credibility of sworn affidavits should include an explanati on of its basis for doing so in its findings of10 fact and conclusions of law, in order that meaningful appellate review may occur. State v. Johnson , 2d Dist. Greene No. 09-CA-16, 10-CA- 07, 2010-Ohio-2838, ¶ 47. In its decision dismissing Simons’ petition, the trial court sp ecifically noted that Judith Simons “is Defendant’s spouse and has an in terest in the success of Defenda nt’s efforts” which directly relates to the credibility of her affidavit. Thus, the trial court provided a proper justification for discounting the credibility of Judith Sim ons’ affidavit. More over, trial counsel’s decision not to call Judith Simons to testify at trial may have been a tactical decision based on her perceived lack of credibility in the minds of the jurors because of her status as Simons’ wife. Thus, we find that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call Judith Simons to testify at trial. {¶ 22} Simons contends that trial counsel wa s also ineffective for failing to object to or question Tonia Justice regarding her trial testimony implicating him in the theft of the firearms. Without the transcript of the tria l, however, we are unable to review Justice’s testimony. Furthermore, Simons has not pr ovided us with an affidavit from Justice suggesting that she provided false testimony at trial. Without an affidavit from Justice, Simons has failed to present any evidence out side the record which would warrant an evidentiary hearing on the matter. {¶ 23} Simons asserts that trial counsel wa s deficient for failing to object to the prosecutor’s reference to another burglary allegedly committed by him during the sentencing hearing. Again, without a full transcript of th e proceedings below, we are unable to review the comments made by the prosecutor in this regard. Even if we were able to review the comments purportedly made by the prosecutor to the trial judge, it is generally accepted that11 a sentencing court may consider uncharged crimes when imposing sentence. State v. Liming , 2d Dist. Greene No. 04 CA 43, 2004-Ohio-168, ¶ 36. We also find that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to or file a Crim. R. 16(F) motion regarding the State’s certification of non-disclosure of an audio recording. Simons’ conclusory allegation that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the r ecording does not warrant an evidentiary hearing. {¶ 24} Simons also argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to intervene or ask for a continuance when he was unable to provide a urine sample to his parole officer upon his arrival at the B.C.I. for a polygraph ex amination. Simons a sserts that had trial counsel asked for a short continuance so that he had additional time to provide a urine sample, he would have been able to take the polygra ph examination and prove his innocence. On review, we conclude that it wa s not ineffective assistance for Simons’ trial counsel to fail to secure alternate arrangem ents for another polygra ph examination based on Simons’ inability to urinate. It was not the fault of trial counsel that Simons could not provide a urine sample when one was requested of him. {¶ 25} In light of the foregoing analysis, Simons has failed to raise a viable claim of ineffective assistance of couns el in his petition for post-convi ction relief. Thus, we find that the trial court did not err when it held that trial counsel was not in effective regarding the representation of Simons. {¶ 26} In his second claim, Simons asserts th at because his trial counsel failed to subpoena certain witnesses, he was denied his rights to due process, equal protection, compulsory process and to con front witnesses. Based on our prior analysis and our finding12 that trial counsel was not ine ffective for failing to call the w itnesses named by Simons, we find that his second claim is without merit. {¶ 27} In his third claim, Simons argues that he was denied a fair trial in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when the State failed to disclose a pre-trial statement made by Pullins Sr. to police regarding whether Simons or Current sold him the stolen firearms. We note that other than Pullins Sr.’s averment that he told Urbana police that Current, and not Simons, sold him the firearms, Simons failed to establish that such a written statement ever existed or was in possession of the State. Moreover, given that Pullins Sr.’s statement did not exonerate Simons, the result of the trial would not have been any different. {¶ 28} In his fourth claim for relief, Simons asserts that he was denied a fair trial when the prosecution knowingly used the perjur ed testimony of Terry Current to convict him of the charged offenses. In support of this claim, Simons attached the affidavits of Sam Little, Larry Long, and James Gibson to hi s petition for post-convi ction relief. {¶ 29} The trial court found that Little’s affidavit did not indicate that Current lied or committed perjury. The tr ial court found that Long a nd Gibson’s affidavits, while specifically averring that Current told them that he lied when he testified about Simons’ involvement, lack credibility and were ther efore, insufficient to support a petition for post-conviction relief. Upon re view, we agree with the tr ial court and find that the affidavits of Little, Long, and Gibson were insufficient to establish that the State used perjured testimony to convict Simons. “In reviewing petitions for pos t-conviction relief, a trial court may, in the exerci se of its sound discretion, weigh the credibility of affidavits13 submitted in support of the petiti on in determining whether to accept the affidavit as true statements of fact.” State v. Goldwire , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20838, 2005-Ohio-5784. The trial court noted that at the time that Long and Gibson allegedly spoke with Current, they were incarcerated at or being transfe rred from the Tri-County Jail in Mechanicsburg, Ohio. The trial court also noted that Long and Gibson are currently incarcerated at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution in Chillicothe, Ohio. We conclude that the trial court did not err when it found the affidavits of Long and Gibson to not be credible. {¶ 30} Simons also argues that the affidavit of Pullins Sr. establishes that Current provided perjured testimony during trial. At most, Pullins Sr.’s affidavit demonstrates the existence of conflicting testimony regarding the seller of the guns. Without the transcript of the trial, we are unable to review Current’s testimony. Moreover, the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony were matters for the jury to resolve.
State v. DeHass , 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). Absent any cogent, credible evidence suggesting perjury by Curre nt, this issue is not grounds for relief. {¶ 31} In his fifth claim for relief, Simons argues that his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights we re violated when the trial judge and prosecutor conspired against him. Specifically, Simons contends that the trial judge and prosecutor conspired against him by entering into a plea agreement with Current in exchange for his testimony against the appellant. Simons also claims he was conspired against when the trial judge and prosecutor discussed another uncharged burglary at sentencing. Lastly, he claims that items seized from him and his wife during the investigation preceding the trial have not been returned to them. Other than his conc lusory, unsupported allegations involving a14 conspiracy between the trial judge and prosecu tor, Simons provides no evidence that would warrant a hearing on his petiti on for post-conviction relief. {¶ 32} Upon review, we conclude that S imons’ petition and supporting materials fail to set forth sufficient operative facts to establish substantive grounds for post-conviction relief. Thus, the trial cour t did not err when it dismisse d Simons’ petition without an evidentiary hearing and granted the State’s motion for summary judgment. 1 Simons’ first, fourth and fifth assignment s of error are overruled. {¶ 33} Simons’ second assignment of error is as follows: {¶ 34} “IT WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW FOR THE TRIAL COURT NOT TO APPOINT COUNSEL IN FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE POST-CONVICTION PETITION.”

1 We note that although the trial court characterizes its decision issued on December 31, 2012, as a dismissal of Simons’ petition for post-conviction relief, it is actually a grant of summary judgment to the State. While the trial court’s decision does not contain the required Civ. R. 58(B) language regarding final appealable orders (i t is captioned as a “Final A ppealable Order”), t he decision is immediately followed by a notice from the Champaign County Clerk of Courts notifying the parties pursuant to Civ. R. 58(B) that a final appealable order has been rendered. Thus, the dismissal of Simons’ petition is final and appealable. {¶ 35} In his second assignment, Simons argu es that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for appointment of counsel to assist with his petiti on for post- conviction relief. This argument is not well taken. An indigent petitioner does not have a constitutional right to representation by an attorney in a post-conviction proceeding. State v. Crowder , 60 Ohio St.3d 151, 152, 573 N.E.2d 652 (1991). Pursuant to R.C. 120.16(D), the15 public defender may, within his discretion, represent or refuse to represent an indigent petitioner seeking post- conviction relief. State v. Beane , 2d Dist. Champaign No. 95CA4, 1995 WL 472153 (Aug. 9, 1995). However, the tria l court is not required to notify the public defender of an indige nt petitioner's post-conviction proceedings unless it first concludes that the petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Id . Since the trial court properly concluded that Simons was not entitled to a hearing, it did not have an obligation to appoint counsel for him or to notif y the public defender of his petition. Id

. {¶ 36} Simons’ second assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 37} Simons’ third and final assign ment of error is as follows: {¶ 38} “IT WAS CLEAR ABUSE OF DI SCRETION FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA BARRED THE COURT FROM ADJUDICATING THE ALLIED OFFENSE CLAIMS.” {¶ 39} In his final assignment of error, S imons contends that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to find that his allied offense claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Specifically, Simons argues that in light of the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061, addressing whether multiple offenses are allied offenses of similar import pursuant to R.C. 2941.25. {¶ 40} “Unlike a void judgment, a voidable j udgment is one re ndered by a court that has both jurisdiction and authority to act, but the court’s judgment is invalid, irregular,
or erroneous.” State v. Simpkins , 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568, ¶ 12. Moreover, “defendants with a voidable sentence are entitled to re-sentencing only upon16 a successful challenge on direct appeal.” State v. Payne , 114 Ohio St.3d 502, 2007-Ohio-4642, 873 N.E.2d 306, ¶ 30. {¶ 41} The arguments raised in Simons’ petition establish, at most, that his sentence is voidable. State v. Parson , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24641, 2012-Ohio-730. As the defendant failed to do in Parson , Simons does not argue that his sentence is not in conformity with statutorily mandated terms, or is not provided for by law, nor even that his sentence fails to comply with the formal requirements of R.C. 2941.25. Even if we accept that the trial court erred at the time of sentencing when it failed to find that one or more of Simons’ offenses were allied offenses of similar import, Simons’ sentence is merely voidable and not void. Id

. {¶ 42} Arguments challenging the imposition of a sentence that is voidable are barred by the doctrine of res judicat a if not raised on direct appeal. Parson , supra , citing State v. Simpkins , 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568, ¶ 30. Res judicata precludes a defendant fro m raising an issue “in a moti on for post-conviction relief if he or she could have raised the issue on direct appeal.” State v. Reynolds , 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 161, 679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997). Because Simons’ sentence, assuming his allied offense argument had merit, would be voidable, he is barred by th e doctrine of res judicata from challenging his sentence on those grounds collaterally through his petition for post-conviction relief. Smith v. Voorhies , 119 Ohio St.3d 345, 2008-Ohio-4479, 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 10-11 (“allied-offense claims are non-jurisdictional,” and, thus, barred by the doctrine of res judicata where they were raised, or c ould have been raised, on direct appeal). {¶ 43} Simons’ third assignment of error is overruled.17 {¶ 44} All of Simons’ assignments of error having been overruled, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . HALL, J. and CELEBREZZE, J., concur. (Hon. Frank D. Celebrezze, Jr., Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio). Copies mailed to: Wesley E. Somogy Carl Ray Simons Hon. Nick A. Selvaggio