State v. Dixon , 2017 Ohio 7028 ( 2017 )

[Cite as State v. Dixon, 2017-Ohio-7028.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
CASE NO. 2017-L-040
- vs - :
LAWRENCE D. DIXON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2013 CR
000875.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Karen A. Sheppert, Assistant
Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490,
Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Lawrence D. Dixon, pro se, PID: A652-842, Lake Erie Correctional Institution, P.O.
Box 8000, 501 Thompson Road, Conneaut, OH 44030 (Defendant-Appellant).
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Lawrence Dixon, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion
for jail-time credit. We affirm.
{¶2} Dixon asserts two assigned errors:
{¶3} “The trial court erred when it failed to credit appellant’s 118 days of pre-
trial confinement against each prison term.
{¶4} “The sentence of the trial court violated Equal Protection Clauses under
the state and federal constitutions.”
{¶5} We do not address the merits of his arguments, however, because Dixon’s
arguments are barred by res judicata. State v. Guiterres, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2015-
T-0116, 2016-Ohio-5572, ¶11.
{¶6} In 2014, Dixon pleaded guilty to four counts of receiving stolen property
and one count of misusing a credit card. He was sentenced to a total of 47 months in
prison and credited with 118 days of time served. He did not appeal.
{¶7} On December 12, 2016, Dixon filed his first motion for jail-time credit
captioned “motion to correct mathematical calculation of already granted motion for jail-
time credit pursuant to R.C. 2929.19,” which was denied December 23, 2016. Dixon did
not appeal.
{¶8} On December 30, 2016, Dixon filed a response to the state’s motion in
opposition after the trial court already denied his motion for jail-time credit. Construing
his response as a motion for reconsideration, the trial court again overruled his motion
on February 10, 2017. Dixon appealed the February 10, 2017 judgment on March 9,
2017.
{¶9} Although captioned differently, both Dixon’s motion and his response
asked the trial court for the same substantive relief, i.e., an additional 472 days of jail-
time credit. Thus, the argument raised in his response was already considered and
overruled by the trial court in its December 23, 2016 decision.
{¶10} Dixon had to appeal the trial court’s December 23, 2016 judgment in order
to properly place his arguments before us since the same point of law was already
2
raised and rejected by the trial court in this decision. Accordingly res judicata bars
consideration of Dixon’s assigned errors now because the issue could have been raised
and considered in a direct appeal from the December 23, 2016 decision. Guiterres,
supra, at ¶11-12, citing State v. Kleiner, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2012-G-3077, 2012-
Ohio-5933, ¶14.
{¶11} Moreover, and contrary to the caption of Dixon’s first motion for jail-time
credit, he was not seeking the correction of a mere clerical error, but a substantive legal
determination regarding jail-time credit. State v. Marcum, 4th Dist. Hocking No.
14CA13, 2014-Ohio-5373, ¶26, citing State v. Smiley, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-266,
2012-Ohio-4126, ¶12. Thus, res judicata applies. Id.{¶12} Accordingly, Dixon’s assigned errors lack merit and are overruled.
{¶13} The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, P.J.,
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.,
concur.
3