State v. Stegall , 2022 Ohio 2985 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Stegall, 2022-Ohio-2985.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2022-03-027
: OPINION
- vs - 8/29/2022
:
JUSTIN STEGALL, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2009-12-2121
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, John C. Heinkel, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Justin Stegall, pro se.
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Justin Stegall, appeals from the decision of the Butler County Court
of Common Pleas denying his second and most recent motion to correct his allegedly "void"
15-year prison sentence that was imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of first-degree
felony aggravated robbery, one of which included a firearm specification, one count of third-
Butler CA2022-03-027
degree felony failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer, and one count of
fourth-degree felony receiving stolen property. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On March 17, 2010, Stegall pled guilty to the above-named offenses and
firearm specification that arose from his involvement in a series of armed robberies that
occurred in Butler County, Ohio on October 17, 2009. Stegall subsequently appealed his
conviction to this court. However, on January 24, 2011, this court dismissed Stegall's
appeal upon finding the appeal wholly frivolous under the United States Supreme Court's
decision in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967). State v. Stegall, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2010-03-070, 2011-Ohio-262, ¶ 3. The Ohio Supreme Court thereafter
denied Stegall's motion for delayed appeal on January 22, 2014. State v. Stegall, 137 Ohio
St.3d 1472, 2014-Ohio-176.
{¶ 3} On January 30, 2014, Stegall filed his first motion to correct his allegedly
"void" 15-year prison sentence. The trial court issued a decision denying Stegall's motion
approximately one year later, on January 15, 2015. Stegall then appealed the trial court's
decision and this court affirmed. State v. Stegall, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-01-012,
2015-Ohio-3934. In so holding, this court specifically stated that "the trial court's decision
sentencing Stegall to a total aggregate term of 15 years in prison is not void * * *." Id. at ¶
17. The Ohio Supreme Court subsequently declined review on February 10, 2016. State
v. Stegall, 144 Ohio St.3d 1478, 2016-Ohio-467.
{¶ 4} On February 14, 2022, Stegall filed another motion to correct his allegedly
"void" 15-year prison sentence. To support his motion, Stegall argued his sentence had
been rendered void by the General Assembly's passage of Am. Sub. S.B. No. 256 ("SB
256") effective April 12, 2021. The trial court denied Stegall's motion on February 25, 2022.
In so doing, the trial court initially noted that Stegall had been 16 years old at the time the
offenses for which he was convicted took place and that Stegall was "sentenced as an adult
-2-
Butler CA2022-03-027
after the case had been transferred from the juvenile court system." The trial court then
noted, in pertinent part, the following:
Defendant does not provide any actual statutory citations for his
rather convoluted argument that he was somehow sentenced in
a manner contrary to the effects of 2021's SB 256. The primary
purpose of SB 256 was to prohibit sentences of life without
parole for offenders under eighteen years of age. * * *
Defendant, in 2010, did not receive a sentence of life without
parole. Defendant has failed to point to the Court any other
statutory provision or legal principle under which he could be
entitled to have this Court review his original sentence. As such,
Defendant's motion to correct void sentence is hereby DENIED
as not being well taken.
{¶ 5} On March 23, 2022, Stegall filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court's
decision. Stegall's appeal now properly before this court for decision, Stegall has raised
the following three assignments of error.
{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 7} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED JUDICIAL DISCRETION BY
FAILING TO CORRECT APPELLANTS (sic) VOID SENTENCE, VIOLATING HIS DUE
PROCESS CAUSE TO THE 5TH AND 14TH U.S. CONST. AMEND.
{¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED JUDICIAL DISCRETION BY
FAILING TO CORRECT APPELLANT (sic) VOID SENTENCE WHEN HIS SENTENCE
RUNS AFOUL WITH OHIO RETROACTIVE CLAUSE, OHIO CONST. ART 11; 28.
{¶ 10} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 11} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED JUDICIAL DISCRETION BY
FAILING TO CORRECT APPELLANTS (sic) VOID SENTENCE WHILE DEPRIVING
APPELLANT OF RIGHTS TO APPEAL IN VIOLATION TO THE DUE PROCESS AND
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FED. CONST.
{¶ 12} In his three assignments of error, Stegall reiterates the same basic arguments
-3-
Butler CA2022-03-027
he raised below in his most recent motion to correct his allegedly "void" 15-year prison
sentence. This necessarily means that, on appeal, Stegall is arguing the trial court erred
by failing to find his 15-year prison sentence had been rendered "void" by the General
Assembly's passage of SB 256 effective April 12, 2021. To support this claim, Stegall
argues the trial court's failure to find his sentence "void" violated his due process and equal
protection rights guaranteed to him under the United States and Ohio Constitutions. Stegall
also argues the trial court's failure to find his sentence "void" runs afoul of the Retroactive
Clause found in Article II, Section 28, of the Ohio Constitution. We disagree with all of
Stegall's claims.
{¶ 13} "A void sanction is not precluded from appellate review by principles of res
judicata, and may be reviewed at any time, on direct appeal or by collateral attack." State
v. Williams, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-03-055, 2018-Ohio-3990, ¶ 20. Recently, in State
v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, the Ohio Supreme Court realigned its void-
versus-voidable jurisprudence with the "traditional understanding of what constitutes a void
judgment." Id. at ¶ 4. "That is to say, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified its prior decisions
discussing the void/voidable conundrum and explicitly stated that '[w]hen a case is within a
court's subject-matter jurisdiction and the accused is properly before the court, any error in
the exercise of that jurisdiction in imposing postrelease control renders the court's judgment
voidable,' not void." State v. Brasher, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2020-08-094, 2021-Ohio-
1688, ¶ 17, quoting Id. "If a judgment entry is voidable, then it must be challenged on direct
appeal, or else principles of res judicata will apply * * *." State ex rel. Romine v. McIntosh,
162 Ohio St.3d 501, 2020-Ohio-6826, ¶ 12.
{¶ 14} After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we agree with the
trial court's finding the primary purpose behind SB 256 was to prohibit defendants from
being sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for an offense committed
-4-
Butler CA2022-03-027
as a minor. In this case, however, although Stegall was a minor at the time he committed
his offenses, the trial court did not sentence Stegall to life in prison without the possibility of
parole. The trial court instead sentenced Stegall to serve a definite 15-year prison term.
Therefore, despite what Stegall seems to believe, we find it clear that SB 256 is not
applicable to the case at bar given that Stegall was not sentenced to life in prison without
the possibility of parole for the offenses he committed as a minor. Accordingly, given the
inapplicability of SB 256 to the case at bar, the General Assembly's passage of SB 256 did
not render Stegall's sentence "void." Stegall's sentence was at the time of its imposition,
and is still now, a valid 15-year prison sentence. Stegall's three assignments of error lack
merit and are overruled.
{¶ 15} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.
-5-