[Cite as State v. Hayes, 2014-Ohio-1263.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

ANTHONY HAYES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL NO. C-130450 

TRIAL NO. B-0602216 

 

 

O P I N I O N.

 

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 28, 2014 

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Anthony Hayes, pro se. 

Please note: we have removed this case from the accelerated calendar.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

2

HILDEBRANT, Judge. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Anthony Hayes appeals from the Hamilton 

County Common Pleas Court’s judgment dismissing his postconviction motions 

challenging the legality of his sentences and his trial counsel’s effectiveness. We 

affirm the court’s judgment. 

{¶2} In 2007, for his part in the February 1, 2006 armed robbery of April Gill, 

Hayes was convicted upon guilty pleas to aggravated robbery, robbery, and having 

weapons under a disability. And for his part in the February 17, 2006 armed robbery 

and restraint of Candece Pugh and her three children, Hayes was convicted upon guilty 

pleas to aggravated robbery, robbery, four counts of kidnapping, and two counts of 

having weapons under a disability. He unsuccessfully challenged his convictions in 

appeals to this court and the Ohio Supreme Court, see State v. Hayes, 1st Dist. 

Hamilton No. C-070063 (Aug. 6, 2008), appeal not accepted, 120 Ohio St.3d 1489, 

2009-Ohio-278, 900 N.E.2d 199, and in postconviction motions filed between 2007 

and 2012. See State v. Hayes, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-080377 (Feb. 25, 2009); 

State v. Hayes, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-100349 (Oct. 8, 2010); State v. Hayes, 1st 

Dist. Hamilton No. C-110429 (Feb. 10, 2012). 

{¶3} In this appeal, Hayes presents two assignments of error, challenging 

the dismissal of his April 2012 “Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Sentence,” May 4, 

2012 “Motion to Correct Void Judgment or in the Alternative * * * Set Aside Guilty 

Plea,” and May 29, 2012 “Motion to Vacate and Correct Sentences.” We overrule the 

assignments of error upon our determination that the common pleas court had no 

jurisdiction to entertain the motions. 

{¶4} In his motions, Hayes challenged his trial counsel’s effectiveness in 

negotiating and counseling his guilty pleas and the trial court’s failure, in sentencing 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

3

him for allied offenses, to afford him the protections of R.C. 2941.25. But Hayes did 

not designate in his motions a statute or rule under which he might be afforded 

relief. R.C. 2953.21 et seq., governing the proceedings on a petition for postconviction 

relief, provide “the exclusive remedy by which a person may bring a collateral 

challenge to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case.” R.C. 

2953.21(J). Thus, Hayes’s motions were reviewable under the standards provided by 

the postconviction statutes. See State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153, 2008-Ohio-545, 

882 N.E.2d 431, ¶ 12. 

{¶5} But the postconviction statutes did not confer upon the common pleas 

court jurisdiction to entertain the motions on their merits, because the motions did 

not satisfy either the time restrictions of R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) or the jurisdictional 

requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A)(1). And while a court always has jurisdiction to 

correct a void judgment, see State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 

2006-Ohio-5795, 856 N.E.2d 263, ¶ 18-19, neither Hayes’s ineffective-counsel claim 

nor his allied-offenses claims, even if demonstrated, would have rendered his 

convictions void. See State v. Lee, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120307, 2013-Ohio-1811, 

¶ 8. 

{¶6} Accordingly, we overrule the assignments of error and affirm the 

judgment of the court below. 

Judgment affirmed. 

DINKELACKER, J., concurs. 

CUNNINGHAM, P.J., concurs in part and dissents in part. 

CUNNINGHAM, P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 

{¶7} I concur with the majority’s holding that the common pleas court had 

no jurisdiction under the postconviction statutes to entertain Hayes’s motions, and 

that Hayes’s ineffective-counsel claim would not, if demonstrated, render his 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

4

convictions void. But for the reasons set forth in my concurring and dissenting 

opinions in State v. Lee, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120307, 2013-Ohio-1811, ¶ 21-30, 

and State v. Grant, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120695, 2013-Ohio-3421, ¶ 20-28, I 

would hold that the court had jurisdiction to entertain Hayes’s allied-offenses claims, 

because a sentence imposed in contravention of R.C. 2941.25 is void and thus subject 

to review at any time. And based upon the conflict noted in Lee, I would, under the 

authority of the Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(4), certify to the Ohio 

Supreme Court the following question: “Are sentences imposed in violation of R.C. 

2941.25 void and thus subject to review at any time?” See Lee at ¶ 31. 

Please note: 

The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.