State v. Freeman , 2018 Ohio 2936 ( 2018 )

[Cite as State v. Freeman, 2018-Ohio-2936.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 106363
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
MAURICE FREEMAN
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-01-410924-ZA
BEFORE: Stewart, P.J., Celebrezze, J., and Keough, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 26, 2018
FOR APPELLANT
Maurice Freeman, pro se
Inmate No. 431957
Marion Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 1812
Marion, OH 43301
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O’Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Katherine Mullin
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Maurice Freeman, appearing pro se, appeals the trial court’s
denial of his motion to “correct clerical error * * * and correct sentence.” We find no error as
Freeman’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, are moot, and have no merit.
{¶2} In 2001, a jury found Freeman guilty of aggravated murder with one- and three-year
firearm specifications. Separately, the trial court found him guilty of having weapons while
under disability. The court sentenced Freeman to a term of 20 years to life in prison for the
aggravated murder, to be served subsequent and consecutive to the three-year firearm
specification. The court sentenced Freeman to one year for having weapons while under
disability, to be served concurrent with his aggravated murder term. On direct appeal, this court
affirmed his sentence of 23 years to life in prison. State v. Freeman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
80720, 2002-Ohio-4572.
{¶3} In the intervening years, Freeman has filed over 25 motions related to this case.
The denial of the most recent motion forms the basis of this appeal. Freeman raises three
interrelated assignments of error, challenging his sentence regarding the firearm specifications.
The gravamen of Freeman’s complaint is that the court erred because it did not impose a
sentence for his one-year firearm specification. In light of this claimed error, Freeman also
complains that the court failed to correctly journalize his sentence to reflect the additional
one-year sentence, and that it failed to correct this error.
{¶4} Although we find no merit to his arguments, Freeman could have challenged his
sentence on this basis on direct appeal. He failed to do so. See id. This subsequent attempt
is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176,
2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 17-18 (“[Res judicata] serves to preclude a defendant who
has had his day in court from seeking a second on that same issue.”).
{¶5} Even if Freeman’s challenges to his sentence were not barred, they are nevertheless
moot. Review of the record shows that at sentencing, and as directed by R.C. 2941.145, the
trial court ordered Freeman to serve his three-year term for the firearm specification “prior to and
consecutive to” his aggravated murder sentence. As such, Freeman completely served his
sentence for the firearm specification well over a decade ago. Freeman’s challenges to his
sentence for the specification became moot after he completed the term. See State v. Bostic, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84842, 2005-Ohio-2184, ¶ 21 (“Any appeal of a sentence already served is
moot.”).
{¶6} Regardless of being barred as res judicata and moot, Freeman’s claims are also
meritless. Freeman incorrectly asserts that the court failed to order the sentence for his
specification be served prior to and consecutive to the underlying offense. As stated above, this
is exactly what the court ordered.
{¶7} Freeman erroneously argues that R.C. 2929.14 required the court to impose
consecutive sentences for both specifications. To the contrary, because both specifications were
attached to the same underlying count, by imposing a sentence for the three-year specification,
the court was statutorily precluded from imposing a sentence for the one-year specification. See
R.C. 2941.141(B); see State v. Marshall, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73522, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS
617, 10 (Feb. 25, 1999) (“Either the one-year sentence pursuant to R.C. 2941.141 or the
three-year term under R.C. 2941.145 may be imposed for the same count.”).
{¶8} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. It is ordered that a
special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment
into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
______________________________________________
MELODY J. STEWART, PRESIDING JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR