State v. Lynch ( 2017 )

[Cite as State v. Lynch, 2017-Ohio-8642.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
:
-vs- :
: Case No. CT2017-0040
DANIEL D. LYNCH :
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Muskingum
County Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
CR2015-0143
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 20, 2017
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
MUSKINGUM COUNTY PROSECUTOR DANIEL D. LYNCH
27 N. 5TH STREET P.O. BOX 189 NORTHEAST OHIO CORRECTIONAL
ZANESVILLE, OH 43701 2240 HUBBARD ROAD
YOUNGSTOWN, OH 44505
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0040 2
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant appeals the judgment entry of the Muskingum County Court of
Common Pleas denying his motion to vacate sentence. Appellee is the State of Ohio.
Facts & Procedural History
{¶2} In October of 2013, appellant Daniel Lynch was convicted of gross sexual
imposition and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, both felonies of the fourth degree.
Appellant was classified as a Tier I Sexual Offender. On August 3, 2014, appellant was
released from prison on post-release control.
{¶3} On April 15, 2015, appellant was indicted on one count of failure to register
as a sex offender (address change) in violation of R.C. 2950.05(A), a felony of the fourth
degree. On July 8, 2015, appellant pled guilty to one count of failure to register. The trial
court accepted his plea of guilty and ordered a pre-sentence investigation. On August 3,
2015, the trial court sentenced appellant at a sentencing hearing.
{¶4} Additionally, on August 4, 2015, the trial court issued a sentencing entry.
The trial court sentenced appellant to fourteen (14) months in prison. The trial court also
stated in the sentencing entry that appellant was on post-release control at the time of the
commission of the offense herein. The sentencing entry provides, “pursuant to ORC
2929.141, this Court terminates the Defendant’s period of post release control and hereby
ORDERS that the Defendant serve the remainder of his post-release control; said
sentence shall be served mandatory consecutive to the sentence imposed herein.”
{¶5} On May 18, 2017, appellant filed a motion to vacate sentence. Appellant
argued that: the trial court violated his rights pursuant to Criminal Rule 43(A) as the trial
court never told him how much time he had remaining on his post-release control and the
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0040 3
trial court did not impose a sentence as to the remainder of his post-release control time.
Appellant sought to vacate and void his prison term because the years he had remaining
on post-release control were added to his sentence via the Bureau of Sentencing
Computation once he arrived at the state correctional institution. Appellant argued his
sentence should be vacated as his right to notice and right to due process was violated.
{¶6} Appellee filed an opposition to appellant’s motion on May 26, 2017.
Appellee argued appellant’s post-conviction relief petition was untimely and his
arguments were barred by res judicata.
{¶7} The trial court issued a judgment entry denying appellant’s motion on May
30, 2017. The trial court found appellant failed to raise these issues in a direct appeal or
timely post-conviction relief petition and are thus barred by res judicata. The trial court
also found that, pursuant to Criminal Rule 43, appellant’s presence was required at the
sentencing hearing and he was there.
{¶8} Appellant appeals the May 30, 2017 judgment entry of the Muskingum
County Court of Common Pleas and assigns the following as error:
{¶9} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED/ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT
BARRED RES JUDICATA APPELLANT’S MOTION TO VACATE SENTENCE FOR
FAILURE TO IMPOSE JUDICIAL SANCTIONS IN OPEN COURT IN VIOLATION OF
RULE 43(A) OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THE FIFTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, BY CONSTRUING THE
MOTION INTO A DELAYED POST CONVICTION PETITION.”
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0040 4
I.
{¶10} Appellant first contends in his brief that the trial court erred and abused its
discretion in construing his motion as a petition for post-conviction relief. We disagree.
{¶11} The caption of a pro se pleading does not define the nature of the pleading.
State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997). Thus, if the pleading
meets the definition of a petition for post-conviction relief, it must be treated as such,
regardless of the manner in which appellant actually presents the motion to the court.
State v. Green, 5th Dist. Knox No. 15-CA-13, 2015-Ohio-4441.
{¶12} A motion meets the definition of a motion for post-conviction relief set forth
in R.C. 2953.21(A)(1), despite the caption or manner in which a defendant presents a
motion to the court, if it is (1) filed subsequent to direct appeal; (2) claims a denial of
constitutional rights; (3) seeks to render the judgment void; and (4) asks for vacation of
the judgment and sentence. State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 679 N.E.2d 1131(1997).
{¶13} Appellant’s motion satisfies this definition of a petition for post-conviction
relief as defined in R.C. 2953.21. The motion was filed subsequent to the time for a direct
appeal. Further, the motion claims a denial of constitutional rights, as he specifically
alleges his due process rights were violated, in violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and his Article I, Section 16 rights under
the Ohio Constitution. Third, appellant seeks to have his prison term vacated and
rendered void. Fourth, appellant states the remedy he seeks is to vacate the sentence
against him. Accordingly, the trial court properly construed his motion as a petition for
post-release control.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0040 5
{¶14} Appellant next contends the trial court improperly denied his petition for
post-conviction relief as untimely. We disagree.
{¶15} As appellant’s motion is properly construed as a petition for post-conviction
relief, it is apparent it should have been denied because it was filed well beyond the time
limits set by R.C. 2953.21. R.C. 2953.21 requires that a petition for post-conviction relief
be filed no later than three hundred sixty five days after the date on which the trial
transcript is filed in the court of appeals in the direct appeal of the judgment of conviction
or three hundred and sixty five days after the expiration of the time for filing an appeal if
no direct appeal is filed.
{¶16} In this case, appellant did not file a direct appeal. Because the sentencing
entry was issued on August 4, 2015, appellant had until September 3, 2015 to file a direct
appeal. Thus, appellant had until September 2, 2016 to file a timely petition for post-
conviction relief. His motion was not filed until May of 2017. The petition was therefore
untimely as it is was filed beyond the time requirement in R.C. 2953.21(A).
{¶17} Further, appellant has made no attempt to show that any of the exceptions
to R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) apply to his untimely motion. Appellant did not demonstrate he
was unavoidably prevented from discovering facts to present his claim or that a new
federal or state right accrued retroactively to his claim. R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a). Nor did
he demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that, but for a constitutional error, no
reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense as he pled guilty to the
charge. R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b).
{¶18} When a petition for post-conviction relief is filed untimely and does not meet
the requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), a trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0040 6
merits of the petition. State v. Lynn, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2007-0046, 2008-Ohio-
2149. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying his motion as an untimely petition
for post-conviction relief.
{¶19} Appellant also argues the trial court erred and abused its discretion in
applying the doctrine of res judicata in denying his motion. We disagree.
{¶20} It is well-settled that, “pursuant to res judicata, a defendant cannot raise an
issue in a [petition] for post-conviction relief if he or she could have raised the issue on
direct appeal.” State v. Elmore, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2005-CA-32, 2005-Ohio-5940,
quoting State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997). Under the
doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars the defendant who was
represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceedings, except an appeal
from that judgment, any defense or claimed lack of due process that the defendant raised
or could have raised at the trial which resulted in that judgment of conviction or on appeal
from that judgment. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967). A
defendant who was represented by counsel is barred from raising an issue in a petition
for post-conviction relief if the defendant raised or could have raised the issue at trial or
on direct appeal. State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 671 N.E.2d 233 (1996).
{¶21} The allegations appellant makes in his motion concerning the failure to
impose judicial sanctions in open court, his allegation that the trial court did not notify him
it was terminating his prior post-release control and imposing the remainder of the
sentence, and any issues with the sentencing entry could all have been raised on direct
appeal. “A defendant who fails on direct appeal to challenge the sentence imposed on
him for an offense is barred by res judicata from appealing that sentence * * *.” State v.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0040 7
Lindsay, 5th DIst. Richland No. 16CA39, 2017-Ohio-595. Therefore, the trial court
properly denied appellant’s motion on the basis of res judicata.
{¶22} Finally, appellant argues in his brief that his sentencing entry was not final
and appealable because it did not contain the full sentence. We first note that appellant
failed to raise the issue that the sentencing entry was not a final appealable order in his
motion to vacate sentence. Thus, such an argument is waived in this appeal. State v.
Brewer, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 26153, 2015-Ohio-693.
{¶23} Notwithstanding the issue of waiver, we find his claim is barred by res
judicata as appellant could have argued on direct appeal that the sentencing entry was
not final and appealable because it did not contain the exact number of years, months,
and days remaining on his post-release control. See State v. Selmon, 5th Dist. Richland
No. 15 CA 83, 2016-Ohio-723. Appellant did not raise any arguments regarding the lack
of finality of the judgment or challenge the sufficiency or propriety of the sentencing entry
in a direct appeal or timely petition for post-conviction relief.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0040 8
{¶24} Based on the foregoing, appellant’s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶25} The May 30, 2017 judgment entry of the Muskingum County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Hoffman, J., and
Wise, John, J., concur