State v. Damron , 2010 Ohio 6459 ( 2010 )

[Cite as State v. Damron, 2010-Ohio-6459.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ROSS COUNTY
State of Ohio, : Case No. 10CA3158
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
v. : DECISION AND
JUDGMENT ENTRY
James E. Damron, :
Released 12/28/10
Defendant-Appellant. :
______________________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
James E. Damron, Ross Correctional Institute, Chillicothe, Ohio, pro se Appellant.
Michael M. Ater, Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard W. Clagg, Ross
County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Chillicothe, Ohio, for Appellee.
______________________________________________________________________
Harsha, J.
{¶1} James Damron appeals from the entry of the Ross County Court of
Common Pleas denying his pro se “motion for void judgment.” The state charged and
convicted Damron of felonious assault in 2005. He later filed a delayed appeal to this
Court and we affirmed his conviction. In 2009 Damron filed the motion for “void
judgment” in which he set forth new claims contesting his conviction, as well as the
same or similar claims he presented in his direct appeal.
{¶2} We construe Damron’s motion for “void judgment” as an untimely petition
for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.23(A) and conclude it could be dismissed
without conducting a hearing.
{¶3} Damron’s petition also raises several arguments that he raised or could
have raised on direct appeal. Under the doctrine of res judicata, the court could not
Ross App. No. 10CA3158 2
review those issues in the context of a postconviction proceeding, so summary rejection
was appropriate.
{¶4} Finally, Damron contends that the state violated his rights under the
Double Jeopardy Clause by imposing administrative prison sanctions on him while he
was serving time for the underlying conviction. However, administrative sanctions
imposed in prison are not “criminal punishment” for purposes of the Double Jeopardy
Clause and thus we reject this argument as well.
{¶5} Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
I. Summary of the Case
{¶6} While incarcerated at the Ross Correctional Institution in 2005, Damron
fought with an inmate. Following a jury trial, the court convicted him of felonious
assault. Damron appealed his conviction to this Court and we affirmed, rejecting his
arguments that: (1) his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence; (2)
the trial court failed to exclude two allegedly inadmissible hearsay statements; and (3)
his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. See State v. Damron, Ross App. No.
06CA2903, 2007-Ohio-1187.
{¶7} Damron later filed a discretionary appeal, which the Supreme Court of
Ohio did not accept. Finally, Damron filed a federal writ of habeas corpus, which the
district court apparently rejected.1
{¶8} In 2009, Damron filed a “motion for void judgment,” alleging errors that
occurred before, during, and after his trial. Damron principally claimed that his
indictment was defective. This argument was the only issue Damron presented at
length in his motion and the only argument presented that could arguably provide for a
1
Damron’s subsequent appeals are not in our record but he referred to them in his appellate brief.
Ross App. No. 10CA3158 3
“void judgment.” A judgment is “void” when a court that issues it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over the action. Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St. 3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806
N.E.2d 992, at ¶12. “The effect of determining that a judgment is void is well
established. It is as though such proceedings had never occurred; the judgment is a
mere nullity and the parties are in the same position as if there had been no judgment.”
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St. 3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961, at ¶12, quoting
Romito v. Maxwell (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 266, 267, 227 N.E.2d 223 (per curiam)
(internal citations omitted).2 A defective indictment could potentially “render” a judgment
void, while non-structural errors occurring at trial would typically not. See, e.g., State v.
Coldwell (1982), 3 Ohio App. 3d 283, 285, 445 N.E.2d 257.
{¶9} Damron also briefly complained that: (1) his conviction was against the
manifest weight of the evidence; (2) the trial court admitted inadmissible hearsay; (3)
various violations of his Constitutional rights occurred; (4) he received ineffective
assistance of counsel; and (5) the trial court failed to instruct the jurors on lesser
included offenses.
{¶10} The trial court denied this motion on the basis that “defendant’s arguments
could have been raised on direct appeal but were not.” Thereafter, Damron filed this
appeal.
II. Assignments of Error
Assignment of Error No. 1
CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.
Assignment of Error No. 2
2
Bezak mistakenly indicates that it quotes Romito at 267-268.
Ross App. No. 10CA3158 4
THE STATE USED PREJUDICIAL TESTIMONY THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
CLASSIFIED AS INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONY.
Assignment of Error No. 3
THE CHARGES FILED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT IN THE
INDICTMENT ARE IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, FIFTH, EIGHTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
AND SECTION 16 ARTICLE 1 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION CAUSED BY
INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL.
Assignment of Error No. 4
THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE FOR THE JURY
TO CONSIDER AMOUNTS TO PLAIN ERROR.
III. The “Void Judgment” Motion is a Petition for Postconviction Relief
{¶11} Damron’s “motion for void judgment” is actually best deemed a petition for
postconviction relief. See State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St. 3d 158, 1997-Ohio-304, 679
N.E.2d 1131, at syllabus (holding that a post direct appeal motion seeking to vacate a
conviction on constitutional grounds is treated as a petition for postconviction relief).
Under R.C. 2953.21(A), an individual convicted of a criminal offense may petition the
court that previously imposed sentence to vacate the judgment if the defendant alleges
that the judgment is void or voidable. Postconviction relief is available only for errors of
constitutional-dimension, i.e., errors that effectively deprived the trial court of jurisdiction
to convict the defendant. State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 175, 178-179, 226
N.E.2d 104; State v. Powell (1993), 90 Ohio App. 3d 260, 264, 629 N.E.2d 13; see, also,
Katz and Gianelli, Ohio Criminal Law (2007), Section 81:2. Postconviction relief is the
appropriate method to address unconstitutional errors based upon evidence outside of
the trial record. Id.
Ross App. No. 10CA3158 5
{¶12} In his motion for “void judgment,” Damron alleged that his indictment was
defective, thus rendering his conviction void (an argument that he does not renew on
appeal). Damron also re-raised arguments that he presented to this court in his direct
appeal and asserted new arguments based on matters that he did not (but could have)
raised on direct appeal. This latter fact notwithstanding, we believe that the trial court
should have construed Damron’s “motion for void judgment” as an untimely petition for
postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.23(A). Applying that statute we conclude a
summary denial of the motion was appropriate.
A. Damron Failed to Establish Grounds to File a Delayed Petition
{¶13} Under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2), a defendant must file a petition for
postconviction relief no later than 180 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.” If a
defendant fails to file an appeal, the 180 days begins to run upon expiration of the 30-
day period for filing a timely appeal. Id. The total time limit remains the same if the
defendant files a delayed appeal. “[D]efendants who file a delayed appeal are treated
the same as defendants who file no appeal at all; both are given two hundred ten days
from the date of conviction to bring a petition, one hundred eighty days plus the original
thirty-day appeal period.” State v. Bird (2000), 138 Ohio App. 3d 400, 406, 741 N.E.2d
560.
{¶14} The court convicted Damron on December 20, 2005. He filed notice of his
delayed direct appeal in this case on May 31, 2006. The 210th day following December
20, 2005 was July 18, 2006. Thus, Damron’s present petition for postconviction relief,
filed on December 18, 2009 was clearly untimely.
Ross App. No. 10CA3158 6
{¶15} If a petition for postconviction relief is untimely, the defendant may still
seek “delayed relief” under R.C. 2953.23(A). The defendant “must demonstrate either
that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering facts upon which his petition relies,
or that his petition relies on the recognition of a new federal or state right recognized by
the United States Supreme Court that applies retroactively to a person in the petitioner’s
situation. In addition to one of these two factors, the petitioner must show by clear and
convincing evidence that, but for the constitutional error, no reasonable trier of fact
would have found him guilty of the offense for which he was convicted.” State v. Hill
(1998), 129 Ohio App. 3d 658, 661, 718 N.E.2d 978, citing R.C. 2953.23(A).
{¶16} Damron’s petition failed to address, or otherwise demonstrate what
“unavoidably prevented” him from discovering the facts upon which the petition relies.
Damron’s principal argument contends that his indictment was defective. However,
Damron failed to explain why he could not have asserted this argument within the time
for filing a timely petition for postconviction relief. Ostensibly, Damron had access to
any charging instrument in this case for at least four years prior to filing the untimely
petition.
{¶17} Damron also contends that he has acquired new evidence indicating that
a witness who testified on the state’s behalf lied about the type of shoes he was wearing
during the attack. He claims that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence
regarding these shoes. However, Damron did not specifically present this argument in
his petition to the trial court, so he has forfeited it. And, he has also has failed on
appeal to explain what “unavoidably prevented” him from discovering this evidence at
an earlier time.
Ross App. No. 10CA3158 7
{¶18} Finally, Damron’s petition makes no reference to a new federal or state
right recognized by the United States Supreme Court.
{¶19} Because his petition failed to satisfy the requirements for a delayed
petition, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider it and a dismissal without a hearing
was appropriate. See R.C. 2953.23(A) (unless the defendant shows the required
exceptions “a court may not entertain a petition filed after the expiration of the period
prescribed in [R.C. 2953.21(A)].”)
B. Res Judicata Bars Damron’s Remaining
Postconviction Relief Arguments
{¶20} The court could have denied at least a portion of Damron’s delayed
petition on other grounds. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a court may not consider
issues that a defendant raised or could have raised on direct appeal in postconviction
relief proceedings. State v. Nichols (1984), 11 Ohio St. 3d 40, 41-42, 463 N.E.2d 375.
Postconviction relief is available only for errors based upon facts and evidence outside
the record, which would not be reviewable on direct appeal. See State v. Rodriguez
(1989), 65 Ohio App. 3d 151, 153, 583 N.E.2d 347 (per curiam).
{¶21} In his “motion for void judgment,” Damron asserted several arguments that
he raised on direct appeal or could have raised there. In this appeal, Damron assigns
error to only two of those issues. First, Damron argues that his conviction was against
the manifest weight of the evidence. We concluded in Damron’s 2007 direct appeal that
his conviction was not against the weight of the evidence. This issue is res judicata
(and “law of the case,” see Nolan v. Nolan (1984), 11 Ohio St. 3d 1, 462 N.E.2d 410, at
syllabus) and the court could not review it again in a postconviction proceeding.
Second, Damron alleged that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on lesser
Ross App. No. 10CA3158 8
included offenses. Although Damron did not raise this argument in his 2007 direct
appeal, he could have. Thus, res judicata bars review of this issue as well in
postconviction proceedings.
C. Administrative Sanctions
{¶22} In his third assignment of error, Damron claims a violation of his rights
under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Double
Jeopardy Clause protects a criminal defendant against: (1) a second prosecution for
the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after
conviction; and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. Monge v. California
(1998), 524 U.S. 721, 727-728, 118 S. Ct. 2246. See, also, Section 10, Article I of the
Ohio Constitution.
{¶23} In his appellate brief, Damron fails to explain what aspect of his conviction
violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. After the state mentions this omission in its
appellee’s brief, Damron explains in his reply brief that Double Jeopardy applies
because “Appellant spent approximately sixteen (16) months in isolation, had RIB, LC
and 4-B hearings and received a five (5) year consecutive sentence therefore being
subjected to various punishments for the same charge.” Apparently, Damron is arguing
that the sanctions he has received while in prison amount to double punishment for the
same offense. We have previously held that administrative punishments imposed
within the prison system are not “criminal punishment” and thus do not implicate the
Double Jeopardy Clause. See State v. Thompson (1999), 132 Ohio App. 3d 755, 758,
726 N.E.2d 530. Consequently, we overrule this assignment of error.
Ross App. No. 10CA3158 9
IV. Conclusion
{¶24} Although the trial court should have treated Damron’s “motion for void
judgment” as an untimely petition for postconviction relief, it did not err by denying it as
we would have reached the same ultimate result. Consequently, we overrule each of
Damron’s assignments of error.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Ross App. No. 10CA3158 10
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED and that Appellant shall pay the
costs.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Ross
County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL HAS
BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it is
temporarily continued for a period not to exceed sixty days upon the bail previously
posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow Appellant to file with the Supreme
Court of Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court.
If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the
sixty day period, or the failure of the Appellant to file a notice of appeal with the
Supreme Court of Ohio in the forty-five day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of
the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court
of Ohio dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as
of the date of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
McFarland, P.J. & Kline, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court
BY: ________________________
William H. Harsha, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment
entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing
with the clerk.