State v. Johnson , 2020 Ohio 1307 ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Johnson, 
    2020-Ohio-1307
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY
    STATE OF OHIO                                     :
    :
    Plaintiff-Appellee                        :   Appellate Case No. 28503
    :
    v.                                                :   Trial Court Case No. 2004-CR-2082
    :
    RONALD G. JOHNSON                                 :   (Criminal Appeal from
    :   Common Pleas Court)
    Defendant-Appellant                       :
    :
    ...........
    OPINION
    Rendered on the 3rd day of April, 2020.
    ...........
    MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by SARAH E. HUTNIK, Atty. Reg. No. 0095900, Assistant
    Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division,
    Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422
    Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
    RONALD G. JOHNSON, Inmate No. 518-770, Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, 2240
    Hubbard Road, Youngstown, Ohio 44505
    Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se
    .............
    TUCKER, P.J.
    -2-
    {¶ 1} Appellant, Ronald G. Johnson, appeals from two trial court orders overruling
    ten separately filed, but interrelated, motions. The trial court did not err by overruling the
    motions. Thus, the trial court’s judgments will be affirmed.
    Facts and Procedural History
    {¶ 2} Johnson holds the seemingly sincere and fervent belief that the Ohio Bureau
    of Sentence Computation (BSC) has incorrectly calculated the maximum expiration date
    of his prison sentence. This belief has prompted Johnson to litigate this issue in the trial
    court, this court, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
    and the Ohio Supreme Court. This litigation has been unsuccessful, but these failures
    have not curtailed Johnson’s efforts to establish that his incarceration is unlawful, with the
    pending litigation being the latest iteration.
    {¶ 3} We have previously set forth the facts and law regarding Johnson’s sentence
    as follows:
    In 1987, Johnson was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and
    sentenced to an indefinite prison term of 7-25 years. While on parole for
    the voluntary manslaughter conviction, Johnson was convicted of various
    offenses in several counties, including a conviction in the trial court for
    burglary and receiving stolen property. As a result of these convictions,
    Johnson was sentenced to an aggregate and definite 12-year prison term,
    his parole status was revoked, and the 12-year prison term was ordered to
    be served consecutively to the remaining voluntary manslaughter sentence.
    BSC has calculated that Johnson’s maximum prison term will end in
    August 2024. Johnson takes issue with this calculation, but, as we recently
    -3-
    stated in a previous appeal filed by Johnson on the same issue, “the trial
    court had no authority to address BSC’s calculation of Johnson’s sentence
    * * *.” State v. Johnson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28162, 
    2019-Ohio-1801
    ,
    citing State v. Armstrong, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27413, 
    2018-Ohio-191
    ,
    ¶ 18. The trial court, therefore, correctly concluded that it was without
    authority to address Johnson’s argument regarding the BSC sentencing
    calculation.
    Further, Johnson’s argument fails “because the Ohio Supreme Court
    has already found that his maximum term will not expire until 2024. The
    Supreme Court affirmed the 12th District’s dismissal of Johnson’s petition
    for a writ of habeas corpus in Johnson v. Moore, 
    149 Ohio St.3d 716
    , 2017-
    Ohio-2792, 
    77 N.E.3d 967
    , concluding: ‘Johnson’s petition was properly
    dismissed because it fails to state a claim.     When a sentencing court
    imposes a definite term of imprisonment consecutively to an indefinite term,
    the Ohio Administrative Code requires the prisoner to serve the definite term
    first, followed by the indefinite term.    As the 2007 letter from [BSC]
    indicates, Johnson’s maximum term will not expire until 2024.’ ” Id. at ¶ 7,
    quoting Johnson v. Moore at ¶ 7, quoting Jones v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.,
    10th Dist. Franklin No. 16AP-138, 
    2016-Ohio-5425
    , ¶ 16, citing Ohio
    Adm.Code 5120-2-03(E).
    State v. Johnson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28249, 
    2019-Ohio-3119
    , ¶ 2-4.
    {¶ 4} The pending appeal involves two trial court decisions, filed on the same day,
    overruling ten motions Johnson had filed. The motions were styled as follows:
    -4-
    1. February 13, 2019 Motion for Satisfaction of Judgment Order Rendering
    the 5 Year Sentence Satisfied;
    2. March 22, 2019 Motion for Delayed Appeal; Request for Appeal Counsel
    to be Appoint[ed], and Motion for Leave;
    3. March 22, 2019 Motion for Post-Conviction Relief Pursuant to ORC
    2953.21;
    4. March 27, 2019 Petition to Vacate or Set Aside Judgment or Sentence
    Evidentiary Hearing Requested;
    5. April 3, 2019 Motion for Records;
    6. April 9, 2019 Motion for Counsel Reconsideration;
    7. April 12, 2019 Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion for Suspension of
    Sentence and Post-Conviction Release, and Motion for Counsel to be
    Assigned;
    8. May 23, 2019 Motion for Pro Tunc Amended Judgment Entry;
    9. June 3, 2019 Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Amended Judgment Entry
    Vacating the Consecutive Imposed         Term    and   the   Post      Release
    Control     Sanction   that   were     Imposed     without    the Mandated,
    Statutory Findings; and
    10. April 18, 2019 motion for Ohio Civ.R. 60(B)(3), (4), and (5) Relief from
    Judgment.
    The trial court, as noted, overruled each motion, and this appeal followed.
    Analysis
    {¶ 5} The previous litigation has established the trial court is without authority to
    -5-
    “address BSC’s calculation of Johnson’s sentence,” and, even if such authority existed,
    the Ohio Supreme Court, whose dictates lower courts must follow, has ruled that
    “Johnson’s maximum term will not expire until 2024.”           State v. Johnson, 2d Dist.
    Montgomery No. 28162, 
    2019-Ohio-1801
    , ¶ 6; Johnson, 
    149 Ohio St.3d 716
    , 2017-Ohio-
    2792, 
    77 N.E.3d 967
    , ¶ 7.
    {¶ 6} Johnson’s brief contains thirty assignments of error. Assignments of error
    1-15, 19-28, and 30 attack, in one form or another1, the Supreme Court’s determination
    that Johnson’s 12-year prison term, under Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-03.2(E), must be
    served consecutively to Johnson’s 7-25 year indefinite prison term, and, from this, the
    Supreme Court’s conclusion, consistent with the BSC calculation, that Johnson’s
    maximum sentence will not expire until 2024. Johnson, 
    149 Ohio St.3d 716
    , 2017-Ohio-
    2792, 
    77 N.E.3d 967
    , at ¶ 7.       Neither the trial court nor this court can modify this
    conclusion. For this reason, the indicated assignments of error are overruled.
    {¶ 7} Assignment of error 16 asserts Johnson was denied due process and equal
    protection because an evidentiary hearing was not conducted. Based upon the status
    of Johnson’s sentence as recognized by the Supreme Court, the trial court had no reason
    to conduct an evidentiary hearing. This assignment of error is overruled.
    {¶ 8} Assignment of error 17 contends the trial court erred by not granting
    Johnson’s public records request.        A public records request filed by a convicted,
    incarcerated defendant must specifically set forth the records he seeks and establish that
    1
    A number of Johnson’s assignments of error assert the trial judge has committed ethical
    violations. This court is not the forum to resolve alleged trial court ethical violations. But
    since the purported ethical violations concern the trial court’s failure to accept Johnson’s
    position, these assignments of error are appropriately resolved as indicated.
    -6-
    the records are required to pursue a justiciable claim.        State v. Atakpu, 2d Dist.
    Montgomery No. 25232, 
    2013-Ohio-4392
    , ¶ 9.            See also R.C. 149.43(B)(8).        As
    discussed, Johnson has not set forth a justiciable claim. Assignment of error 17 is
    overruled.
    {¶ 9} Assignment of error 18 argues the trial court erred by overruling Johnson’s
    request for appointed counsel. Johnson did not have a constitutional right to appointed
    counsel to adjudicate the post-conviction motions. Thus, the trial court did not err by
    overruling the request for appointed counsel. Assignment of error 18 is overruled.
    {¶ 10} Finally, in assignment of error 29, Johnson asserts that his constitutional
    due process and equal protection rights were violated because the trial court did not rule
    on his motions in the “maximum allowed 180 * * * days.” Assuming, for the sake of
    brevity, that the trial court had an obligation to rule upon any of Johnson’s motions within
    180 days, the record reflects that each motion was decided within 180 days. Assignment
    of error 29 is overruled.
    Conclusion
    {¶ 11} Having overruled all of the assignments of error, the judgments of the
    Montgomery County Common Pleas Court are affirmed.
    .............
    DONOVAN, J. and HALL, J., concur.
    -7-
    Copies sent to:
    Mathias H. Heck, Jr.
    Sarah E. Hutnik
    Ronald G. Johnson
    Hon. Steven K. Dankof