State v. Jones , 2013 Ohio 3434 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Jones, 
    2013-Ohio-3434
    .]
    Court of Appeals of Ohio
    EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
    No. 99391
    STATE OF OHIO
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
    vs.
    VINCE JONES
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
    JUDGMENT:
    AFFIRMED
    Criminal Appeal from the
    Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
    Case Nos. CR-525681 and CR-526447
    BEFORE: Boyle, P.J., Keough, J., and Blackmon, J.
    RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED:                       August 8, 2013
    FOR APPELLANT
    Vince Jones, pro se
    Inmate No. 572-912
    Marion Correctional Institution
    P.O. Box 57
    Marion, Ohio 43301
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Timothy J. McGinty
    Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
    BY: Kristen L. Sobieski
    Assistant County Prosecutor
    The Justice Center
    1200 Ontario Street
    Cleveland, Ohio 44113
    MARY J. BOYLE, P.J.:
    {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Vince Jones, appeals from a judgment denying his
    motion to vacate his sentence for a “restitution hearing and resentencing.” He raises six
    assignments of error for our review.   We find no merit to any of them and affirm.
    Procedural History
    {¶2} In July 2009, Jones was indicted in two separate cases, Cuyahoga C.P. Nos.
    CR-525681 and CR-526447. He was charged with a total of 20 counts, but eventually
    entered into a plea agreement where he pleaded guilty to six counts.       In Cuyahoga C.P.
    No. CR-525681, he pleaded guilty to one count of identity fraud, one count of forgery,
    and one count of aggravated theft, and agreed to pay restitution in the amount of $12,700.
    In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-526447, he pleaded guilty to one count of identity fraud, one
    count of forgery, and one count of tampering with records, and agreed to pay restitution in
    the amount of $4,837.52. All additional charges were nolled.
    {¶3} Jones was sentenced to a total of four years in prison in Cuyahoga C.P. No.
    CR-525681, and a total of four years in prison in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-526447. The
    sentences were ordered to run consecutively, for a total of eight years in prison.
    {¶4} The trial court also ordered Jones to pay restitution in the amount he agreed
    to pay in his plea agreement, as well as costs.   But the trial court failed to mention either
    restitution or costs at the sentencing hearing. As a result, on direct appeal, this court
    sustained Jones’s arguments regarding restitution and costs, vacated his sentence, and
    remanded for a new sentencing hearing.        See State v. Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
    94408, 
    2011-Ohio-453
    .
    {¶5} We further found that the trial court incorrectly “confused which charge
    carried the four-year sentence.”         Because we were already remanding for a new
    sentencing hearing on restitution and costs, we also instructed the trial court to correctly
    state the proper sentence for each charge at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing
    entry. Id. at ¶ 56.
    {¶6} Upon remand, the trial court resentenced Jones in March 2011, imposing
    the same eight-year prison sentence and correcting the errors it had made at the original
    sentencing hearing. Although Jones appealed this sentence, this court dismissed his
    appeal for failure to file the record.
    {¶7} Jones subsequently filed numerous motions with the trial court, all all which
    were denied.    Finally, in July 2012, he moved the court to vacate his sentence for a
    “restitution hearing and resentencing,” which the trial court also denied.   It is from that
    judgment that Jones appeals, raising his six assignments of error.
    Analysis
    {¶8} A vaguely titled motion, including a motion to correct or vacate a sentence,
    may be construed as a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21(A)(1) where
    (1) the motion was filed subsequent to a direct appeal, (2) claimed a denial of
    constitutional rights, (3) sought to render the judgment void, and (4) asked for a vacation
    of the judgment and sentence. State v. Reynolds, 
    79 Ohio St.3d 158
    , 160-161, 
    679 N.E.2d 1131
     (1997). Jones’s motion meets these four requirements. Accordingly, we
    shall construe his motion as a petition for postconviction relief.       See also State v.
    Meincke, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96407, 
    2011-Ohio-6473
    .
    {¶9} A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a petition for postconviction relief
    filed pursuant to R.C. 2953.21 should not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.
    State v. White, 
    118 Ohio St.3d 12
    , 
    2008-Ohio-1623
    , 
    885 N.E.2d 905
    , ¶ 45. Abuse of
    discretion implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
    Id. at ¶ 46.
    {¶10} Under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2), “[a] petition * * * shall be filed no later than one
    hundred eighty 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 or adjudication[.]”   In State v.
    Sharif, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79325, 
    2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 4354
     (Sept. 27, 2001), this
    court held that a trial court may only entertain an untimely petition for postconviction
    relief under the following circumstances:
    1) the petitioner shows either that he was unavoidably prevented from
    discovering the facts upon which he relies in his petition, or that the United
    States Supreme Court has, since the expiration of the period for timely
    filing, recognized a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to
    the petitioner; and 2) the petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence
    that a reasonable factfinder would not have found him guilty but for
    constitutional error at trial.
    Id. at *9-10.
    {¶11} Here, the trial court properly dismissed Jones’s petition for postconviction
    relief. The time limitation for filing a motion for postconviction relief is jurisdictional,
    and a trial court has no authority to consider an untimely filed petition for postconviction
    relief absent an exception.         State v. John, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93226,
    
    2010-Ohio-162
    , ¶ 8; State v. Hutton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 80763, 
    2007-Ohio-5443
    , ¶
    23. Jones was resentenced in March 2011. He did not file his motion until July 2012.
    Further, Jones has not shown he was unavoidably prevented from discovering facts
    relating to his petition or that any new federal or state right applies. Accordingly, the
    trial court was without jurisdiction to address his petition.
    {¶12} Even if Jones had timely filed his motion, his appeal is without merit for
    several other reasons. In his first assignment of error, he argues that in his first appeal,
    this court violated Crim.R. 52(B) by not noticing “the obvious defects” that occurred at
    his original sentencing hearing.   He maintains that we “should have recognized the many
    plain errors and obvious defects that were present” in his original sentencing transcript.
    If Jones had an issue with this court’s decision regarding his direct appeal from his
    original sentencing hearing, however, he should have raised them in an appeal to the Ohio
    Supreme Court.
    {¶13} In his remaining five assignments of error, Jones raises issues related to his
    resentencing hearing.    But these issues are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.   Res
    judicata precludes a convicted defendant from raising an issue in a motion for
    postconviction relief if he or she raised or could have raised the issue on direct appeal.
    State v. Sturdivant, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98747, 
    2013-Ohio-584
    , ¶ 13, citing State v.
    Alexander, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95995, 
    2011-Ohio-1380
    , ¶ 15. See also State v.
    Perry, 
    10 Ohio St.2d 175
    , 
    226 N.E.2d 104
     (1967), at paragraph nine of the syllabus.
    Jones appealed his resentencing judgment to this court, but we dismissed his appeal
    because he failed to timely file the record.
    {¶14} Accordingly, Jones’s six assignments of error are without merit.
    {¶15} Judgment affirmed.
    It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
    The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common
    pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having
    been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated.      Case remanded to the trial court
    for execution of sentence.
    A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
    the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    MARY J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE
    KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and
    PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99391

Citation Numbers: 2013 Ohio 3434

Judges: Boyle

Filed Date: 8/8/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014