In his sole assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court exceeded its authority by permanently revoking his license. In support of his assignment, appellant cites State v. Borchardt (1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 857, 694 N.E.2d 152, a Third Appellate District case. Borchardt held that a trial court has no authority to revoke the license of a person who pleads guilty to vehicular homicide if no aggravating circumstances specifically identified by R.C. 4507.16, such as the influence of drugs or alcohol, are present.

Had Appellant wished to argue that his sentence was void or voidable, that the court abused its discretion in ordering a permanent revocation, or that his case was distinguishable from White, Appellant could have appealed his sentence. See, e.g., State v. Rowe (1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 121; State v. Borchardt (1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 857. Appellant did not, however, pursue an appeal of his sentence. Thereafter, the only procedure by which Appellant could attack his criminal sentence as void or voidable was through a petition for post-conviction relief. Crim.R. 35; R.C. 2953.21.