State v. Williams , 2016 Ohio 4943 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Williams, 2016-Ohio-4943.]
    STATE OF OHIO                     )                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    )ss:               NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF SUMMIT                  )
    STATE OF OHIO                                        C.A. No.      27963
    Appellee
    v.                                           APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
    ENTERED IN THE
    CAMERON D. WILLIAMS                                  COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
    COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
    Appellant                                    CASE No.   CR 07 08 2540
    DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
    Dated: July 13, 2016
    CARR, Presiding Judge.
    {¶1}     Appellant, Cameron D. Williams, appeals the judgment of the Summit County
    Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
    I.
    {¶2}     In 2008, Williams was convicted of numerous offenses, including aggravated
    murder. The substantive facts of the incident which gave rise to Williams’ incarceration are set
    forth in our decision resolving his direct appeal. See State v. Williams, 9th Dist. Summit No.
    24169, 2009-Ohio-3162. As chronicled in our most recent decision in this matter, Williams has
    filed a multitude of post-judgment motions in the trial court. State v. Williams, 9th Dist. Summit
    No. 27482, 2015-Ohio-2632, ¶ 2-3. One of those filings was a petition for post-conviction relief.
    The trial court’s denial of that petition was affirmed by this Court on appeal. State v. Williams,
    9th Dist. Summit No. 25879, 2011-Ohio-6141.
    2
    {¶3}    On August 12, 2015, Williams filed a motion to correct illegal sentence as well as
    a motion to correct a clerical mistake in his sentencing entry. The State responded with a brief in
    opposition to the motions. On September 2, 2015, the trial court issued a journal entry denying
    the motions on the basis that they constituted untimely and successive petitions for post-
    conviction relief.
    {¶4}    On appeal, Williams raises three assignments of error.
    II.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY APPLYING RES JUDICATA TO PERMIT A
    VOID SENTENCE TO STAND AND WHEN A CLERICAL MISTAKE
    EXISTS.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING A COMBINED, MANDATORY
    SENTENCE OF NINE (9) YEARS, ON SIX FIREARM SPECIFICATIONS
    PURSUANT TO R.C. 2941.25(A) WHICH RENDERS THE SENTENCE VOID.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING AN ACTUAL THREE (3) YEAR
    MANDATORY SENTENCE FOR THE FIREARM SPECIFICATION, ON
    COUNT 2 IN ITS JOURNAL ENTRY WHEN IT DID NOT IMPOSE THE
    SENTENCE DURING THE ACTUAL SENTENCING HEARING.
    {¶5}    In his three assignments of error, Williams contends that the trial court erred by
    denying his petitions for post-conviction relief. This Court disagrees.
    {¶6}    It is well settled that “[w]here a criminal defendant, subsequent to his or her direct
    appeal, files a motion seeking vacation or correction of his or her sentence on the basis that his or
    her constitutional rights have been violated, such a motion is a petition for postconviction relief
    as defined in R.C. 2953.21.” State v. Reynolds, 
    79 Ohio St. 3d 158
    (1997), syllabus. R.C.
    2953.21(A)(1)(a) provides that “[a]ny person who has been convicted of a criminal offense * * *
    3
    and who claims that there was such a denial or infringement of the person’s rights as to render
    the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United
    States, * * * may file a petition in the court that imposed sentence, stating the grounds for relief
    relied upon, and asking the court to vacate or set aside the judgment or sentence or to grant other
    appropriate relief.”
    {¶7}    In his motions filed on August 12, 2015, Williams argued that the trial court
    improperly relied on the allied offenses statute in merging certain firearm specifications at
    sentencing. As with the merger of allied offenses, where a defendant does not raise the issue of
    whether the trial court erred in merging the attendant firearm specifications on direct appeal, a
    post-judgment motion raising that issue must be construed as a petition for post-conviction relief.
    See State v. Hendricks, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26978, 2014-Ohio-683, ¶ 8. Accordingly, we must
    construe the motions filed by Williams in this case as successive petitions for post-conviction
    relief. Williams acknowledged in his “motion to correct illegal sentences” that his filings
    constituted untimely and successive petitions, but he argued that he was not required to satisfy
    the requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) because his sentence was void. However, this Court has
    held that a trial court’s failure to merge firearm specifications does not render the sentence void.
    State v. Abuhilwa, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25300, 2010-Ohio-5997, ¶ 8.
    {¶8}    This Court has recognized that “[s]uccessive petitions for post-conviction relief
    are governed by R.C. 2953.23.         Under R.C. 2953.23(A) a trial court is forbidden from
    entertaining a second or successive petition for post-conviction relief unless it meets two
    conditions. First, the petitioner must show 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
    4
    to the petitioner. Second, 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. See
    R.C. 2953.23(A)(1).” State v. Kyle, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25974, 2012-Ohio-456, ¶ 7, quoting
    Williams at ¶ 15.
    {¶9}    In this case, Williams has not explained why he was unavoidably prevented from
    discovering the facts upon which his petitions were based, nor has he identified a retroactive
    right that has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. Under these circumstances,
    the trial court lacked authority to consider the merits of Williams’ petitions and correctly denied
    him the requested relief.
    {¶10} Williams’ assignments of error are overruled.
    III.
    {¶11} Williams’ first, second, and third assignments of error are overruled.            The
    judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
    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 Summit, 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
    5
    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.
    DONNA J. CARR
    FOR THE COURT
    MOORE, J.
    HENSAL, J.
    CONCUR.
    APPEARANCES:
    CAMERON D. WILLIAMS, pro so, Appellant.
    SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant
    Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 27963

Citation Numbers: 2016 Ohio 4943

Judges: Carr

Filed Date: 7/13/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/13/2016