Background
Marquis Bollar pleaded guilty in 2020 to involuntary manslaughter, felonious assault, and having weapons under disability, each with a firearm specification. Although the involuntary-manslaughter and felonious-assault counts merged for sentencing, the trial court imposed consecutive three-year terms for two firearm specifications, producing an aggregate minimum prison term of 20 years and a maximum term of 25.5 years.
Bollar challenged the consecutive firearm-specification terms on direct appeal. The Fifth District affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Ohio later held that R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) required separate prison terms for the two firearm specifications. In January 2026, Bollar filed a pro se motion again challenging the specification stacking and the calculation of his sentence. The trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry clarifying the sentence calculation and denied the balance of his motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed the denial of Bollar’s motion. Because the Supreme Court of Ohio had already decided his challenge to the consecutive firearm-specification sentences, the law-of-the-case doctrine prevented the trial court from reconsidering that issue. The challenge was also barred by res judicata because Bollar had litigated it on direct appeal.
The court further treated Bollar’s motion as a petition for postconviction relief despite its caption. It was filed well outside the statutory deadline, and Bollar did not claim or establish an exception permitting consideration of an untimely petition. The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
As to the nunc pro tunc entry, the appellate court found that it accurately reflected the sentence imposed at the original hearing and did not change Bollar’s aggregate prison term. Although the entry appeared to clarify rather than correct the sentence, any error in issuing it was harmless because Bollar suffered no prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing issue already resolved by the Supreme Court of Ohio could not be relitigated in later proceedings in the same case.
- A post-appeal motion seeking to vacate a judgment based on alleged constitutional error may be treated as a postconviction petition regardless of its title.
- An untimely postconviction petition cannot be considered unless the petitioner satisfies the statutory exceptions.
- A nunc pro tunc entry that accurately reflects the sentence imposed and does not alter the aggregate term is harmless absent prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the procedural barriers to repeated collateral attacks on criminal sentences. Defendants cannot use a newly captioned motion to relitigate an issue already decided on direct appeal and by the state’s highest court, or to avoid Ohio’s deadlines and jurisdictional requirements for postconviction relief.
It also illustrates that an imperfectly characterized nunc pro tunc entry will not warrant reversal when the entry conforms to the sentencing transcript, leaves the aggregate sentence unchanged, and causes no prejudice.