State v. Dyson , 2012 Ohio 3193 ( 2012 )

[Cite as State v. Dyson, 2012-Ohio-3193.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF WAYNE )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 11CA0063
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
CHARLES DYSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 09-CR-0031
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: July 16, 2012
DICKINSON, Judge.
INTRODUCTION
{¶1} Charles Dyson pleaded guilty to one count of rape under Section
2907.02(A)(1)(b) of the Ohio Revised Code. The trial court sentenced him to ten years to life in
prison. Five months after the court entered its judgment, Mr. Dyson attempted to appeal, but this
Court dismissed his appeal as untimely. State v. Dyson, 9th Dist. No. 09CA0055, 2010-Ohio-
6452, ¶ 7. In December 2011, he moved for resentencing de novo, arguing that the court
violated the applicable statutory requirements. The trial court denied Mr. Dyson’s motion, and
he has appealed its decision. We affirm because his arguments are barred by the doctrine of res
judicata.
RES JUDICATA
{¶2} Mr. Dyson’s first assignment of error is that the trial court incorrectly denied his
motion for resentencing. His second assignment of error is that the court incorrectly imposed a
sentence that was more than the maximum allowed. His third assignment of error is that the
2
court incorrectly applied sentencing enhancements that do not apply to the facts of his case. His
fourth assignment of error is that the court incorrectly imposed a sentence that was contrary to
law. His fifth assignment of error is that the court incorrectly applied the Ohio Supreme Court’s
decision in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856.
{¶3} The doctrine of “[r]es judicata bars the assertion of claims against a valid, final
judgment of conviction that [were] raised or could have been raised on appeal.” State v.
Ketterer, 126 Ohio St. 3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, ¶ 59. Each of the arguments that Mr. Dyson has
made in his second, third, fourth, and fifth assignments or error are ones that he could have made
in a timely appeal from the trial court’s sentencing entry. Mr. Dyson also previously made the
same arguments to the trial court in his May 2010 motion to modify sentence, his June 2010
motion for modification of sentence, his February 2011 motion to vacate and correct an improper
sentence, his May 2011 motion to correct improper sentence, and his September 2011 motion to
impose a sentence pursuant to R.C. 2929.14. We, therefore, conclude that they are barred by the
doctrine of res judicata.
{¶4} Regarding Mr. Dyson’s first assignment of error, we note that the arguments he
made in his motion for resentencing de novo are the same as those that he made in his prior
motions for resentencing. We also note that he failed to appeal the trial court’s denial of any of
those prior motions. Accordingly, we conclude that Mr. Dyson’s motion for resentencing de
novo was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Mr. Dyson’s assignments of error are overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶5} Mr. Dyson may not appeal issues that he could have raised on direct appeal from
the trial court’s judgment or in an appeal from his previous motions. The judgment of the
Wayne County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
3
Judgment affirmed.
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 Wayne, 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.
CLAIR E. DICKINSON
FOR THE COURT
MOORE, P.J.
BAIRD, J.
CONCUR.
(Baird, J., retired, of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment pursuant
to, §6(C), Article IV, Constitution.)
APPEARANCES:
CHARLES DYSON, pro se, Appellant.
DANIEL R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATHAN R. SHAKER, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for Appellee.