State v. Alston , 2016 Ohio 5086 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Alston, 
    2016-Ohio-5086
    .]
    STATE OF OHIO                     )                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    )ss:                NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF LORAIN                  )
    STATE OF OHIO                                         C.A. No.       15CA010808
    Appellee
    v.                                            APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
    ENTERED IN THE
    FREDRICK ALSTON                                       COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
    COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
    Appellant                                     CASE No.   10CR081495
    DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
    Dated: July 25, 2016
    HENSAL, Judge.
    {¶1}     Frederick Alston appeals the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common
    Pleas, denying his pro se motion to find the judgment entry of conviction and sentence void in
    part. This Court affirms.
    I.
    {¶2}     After initially entering a plea of not guilty, Frederick Alston pleaded guilty to
    having weapons while under disability in violation of Revised Code Section 2923.13(A)(3) and
    violating a protection order in violation of Section 2919.27(A)(1). On June 29, 2011, the trial
    court sentenced Mr. Alston to two years of community control and imposed court costs. Mr.
    Alston did not file a direct appeal. The trial court terminated his community control in 2012.
    {¶3}     In 2015, Mr. Alston moved the trial court to find its judgment entry of conviction
    and sentence void in part on the basis that it failed to comply with Section 2947.23(A)(1)(a).
    Specifically, he argued that the trial court failed to impose court costs in its judgment entry and
    2
    that it failed to notify him that it could impose community service if he failed to pay court costs.
    Mr. Alston acknowledged that his petition for post-conviction relief was untimely, but argued
    that a court may review a void sentence at any time and that res judicata does not apply to void
    sentences. The trial court denied his motion, holding that the judgment entry and sentencing
    transcript indicated that all statutory requirements had been met. Mr. Alston now appeals,
    raising one assignment of error for our review.
    II.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
    THE JUDGMENT ENTRY IS VOID AND A NON-FINAL APPEALABLE
    ORDER, WHERE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO INCLUDE COURT
    COST[S] IN THE [JUDGMENT] ENTRY AS * * * REQUIRED IN
    VIOLATION OF R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) AND R.C. 2505.02.
    {¶4}    In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Alston argues that the judgment entry of
    conviction is void and a non-final appealable order because the trial court failed to include court
    costs. Our review of the record, however, indicates that the judgment entry does reflect that the
    trial court imposed court costs. His argument, therefore, lacks merit.
    {¶5}     To the extent that Mr. Alston’s argument can be construed to challenge the
    judgment entry on the basis that it does not specify the amount of court costs owed, his argument
    is barred by res judicata. As the Ohio Supreme Court has stated, “failing to specify the amount
    of costs assessed in a sentencing entry does not defeat the finality of the sentencing entry as to
    costs.” State v. Threatt, 
    108 Ohio St.3d 277
    , 
    2006-Ohio-905
    , ¶ 21. Thus, because Mr. Alston
    did not raise this issue on direct appeal, he is barred from doing so now. State v. Jones, 9th Dist.
    Summit No. 26854, 
    2013-Ohio-3710
    , ¶ 7, quoting State v. Ketterer, 
    126 Ohio St.3d 448
    , 2010–
    Ohio–3831, ¶ 59 (“The doctrine of res judicata ‘bars the assertion of claims against a valid, final
    judgment of conviction that * * * could have been raised on [direct] appeal.’”).
    3
    {¶6}   Furthermore, when a defendant does not file a direct appeal, a petition for post-
    conviction relief must be filed “no later than three hundred sixty-five days after the expiration of
    the time for filing the appeal.” R.C. 2953.21(A)(2). Under Section 2953.23(A)(1), a court has
    no jurisdiction to hear an untimely petition for post-conviction relief unless the petitioner shows
    “either that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which he relies in the
    petition, or that the United States Supreme Court has, since his last petition, recognized a new
    federal or state right that applies retroactively to the petitioner.” State v. Williams, 9th Dist.
    Summit No. 25879, 
    2011-Ohio-6141
    , ¶ 15, citing R.C. 2953.23(A)(1).                Additionally, the
    petitioner must show “by clear and convincing evidence that a reasonable factfinder would not
    have found him guilty but for constitutional error at trial.” 
    Id.,
     citing R.C. 2953.23(A)(1).
    {¶7}   Here, although Mr. Alston acknowledged below that his petition for post-
    conviction relief was untimely, his petition “did not offer an explanation regarding why he was
    unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which his petition was based, nor did it
    identify a retroactive right that has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court.” State
    v. Wright, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27880, 
    2016-Ohio-3542
    , ¶ 9. The trial court, therefore, lacked
    jurisdiction to consider the merits of Mr. Alston’s petition and correctly denied him the requested
    relief. 
    Id.
    {¶8}   Mr. Alston’s assignment of error is overruled.
    III.
    {¶9}   Mr. Alston’s assignment of error is overruled.        The judgment of the Lorain
    County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
    Judgment affirmed.
    4
    There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
    Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of
    this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
    Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
    judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
    period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
    instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
    mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
    Costs taxed to Appellant.
    JENNIFER HENSAL
    FOR THE COURT
    CARR, P. J.
    CANNON, J.
    CONCUR.
    (Cannon, J., of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.)
    APPEARANCES:
    FREDRICK M. ALSTON, pro se, Appellant.
    DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATASHA RUIZ GUERRIERI, Assistant
    Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15CA010808

Citation Numbers: 2016 Ohio 5086

Judges: Hensal

Filed Date: 7/25/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/25/2016