State v. Raulston , 2019 Ohio 5189 ( 2019 )

[Cite as State v. Raulston, 2019-Ohio-5189.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
CASE NO. 2019-P-0035
- vs - :
CARL E. RAULSTON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal from the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2013 CR
00469.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Theresa M. Scahill, Assistant
Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, Ohio 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Wesley A. Johnston, P.O. Box 6041, Youngtown, Ohio 44501 (For Defendant-
Appellant).
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Carl Raulston, appeals the denial of his motion to have his
sentence declared void due to an alleged lack of necessary consecutive findings. We
affirm.
{¶2} Raulston was charged with five counts of nonsupport of dependents, fifth-
degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2919.21(A), and pleaded guilty to all five. In August
of 2014, he was sentenced to community control and informed he faced five consecutive
one-year sentences if he violated the conditions. The trial court continued Raulston on
community control in January of 2017 after his first violation.
{¶3} Five months later, in June 2017, the state moved to revoke community
control. And following a hearing, the court revoked Raulston’s community control and
sentenced him to five, one-year consecutive prison terms. He did not pursue a direct
appeal.
{¶4} In March of 2019, Raulston filed a motion for void judgment seeking
resentencing and arguing his sentence is void because the trial court failed to make the
findings necessary for imposing consecutive sentences. The trial court denied his motion.
{¶5} Raulston raises two assigned errors, which we address collectively:
{¶6} “[1.] The Court improperly denied Defendant’s motion to void judgment and
resentencing, as the court committed an error when sentencing Raulston to consecutive
sentences, totaling five years for five counts of non-support of dependents.
{¶7} “[2.] The Court improperly denied Defendant’s motion to void judgment and
resentencing as the trial court erred in sentencing Raulston to maximum consecutive
terms of imprisonment.”
{¶8} When imposing consecutive sentences, a court must state the
statutory findings at the sentencing hearing to provide notice to the defendant and include
the findings in the sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St. 3d 209, 2014-Ohio-
3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 29.
{¶9} A court’s failure to make requisite consecutive sentence findings is an issue
that is voidable, not void, and voidable sentences can be set aside only via direct appeal.
State v. Hall, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2016-A-0069, 2017-Ohio-4376, 93 N.E.3d 35, ¶
2
12, appeal not allowed, 151 Ohio St. 3d 1428, 2017-Ohio-8371, 84 N.E.3d 1065.
Whereas void sentences can be reviewed any time. State v. Wilson, 11th Dist. Lake No.
2015-L-067, 2015-Ohio-5465, ¶ 17. “‘[P]rinciples of res judicata do not apply to void
sentences because, by definition, a void sentence means that no final judgment of
conviction has been announced.’ * * * In contrast, ‘a voidable judgment is one rendered
by a court that has both jurisdiction and authority to act,’ but is ‘invalid, irregular, or
erroneous.’ * * *.” Id. Res judicata promotes judicial economy and the finality of
judgments on issues that a defendant had a fair opportunity to be heard. Hall, supra,
citing State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St. 3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 18.
{¶10} Because appellant could have raised the consecutive sentence argument
in a direct appeal, res judicata precludes raising it in a motion before the trial court or on
an appeal therefrom. State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St. 3d 526, 2013-Ohio-5014, 1 N.E.3d
382, ¶ 8; State v. Wolke, 4th Dist. Adams No. 17CA1048, 2018-Ohio-2119, ¶ 15 (a
defendant must raise the court’s failure to make the necessary findings in a direct appeal).
{¶11} Raulston’s assigned errors lack merit, and the trial court’s decision is
affirmed.
MATT LYNCH, J.,
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,
concur.
3