State v. Rucker

[Cite as State v. Rucker, 2012-Ohio-2176.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 26212
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
DEWITT RUCKER COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 2009-01-0047C
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: May 16, 2012
WHITMORE, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Dewitt Rucker, appeals from the judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I
{¶2} In July 2009, a jury convicted Rucker of multiple offenses, including first-degree
felony trafficking in cocaine. The trial court sentenced Rucker to a prison term on the trafficking
count, but did not impose a mandatory fine. In October 2010, Rucker filed a motion for
resentencing to correct a void judgment. Rucker argued that his sentence was void because the
trial court never ordered him to pay the mandatory fine set forth in R.C. 2925.03(D)(1). The trial
court denied Rucker’s motion.
{¶3} Rucker now appeals from the trial court’s judgment and raises one assignment of
error for our review.
2
II
Assignment of Error
THE APPELLANT ASSERTS THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE
PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT BY DENYING HIS MOTION TO
VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT OF SENTENCE FOR LACK OF
COMPLIANCE WITH THE DICTATES FOUND IN OHIO REVISED CODE
2929.18(B)(1) TO (sic) WHICH DEPRIVED THE APPELLANT OF BOTH HIS
RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE SECTION SIXTEEN OF
THE OHIO CONSTITUTION IN REGARDS TO HIS DUE COURSE AND
DUE PROCESS GUARANTEES.
{¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Rucker argues that the trial court erred by denying
his motion to vacate his sentence as void. We disagree.
{¶5} R.C. 2925.03(D)(1) mandates the imposition of a fine for an offender convicted of
first-degree felony trafficking unless the court determines that the offender is indigent. The trial
court here never determined that Rucker was indigent. Accordingly, Rucker argues that his
sentence is void because it is missing an essential element: the mandatory fine set forth in R.C.
2925.03(D)(1). This Court addressed the same argument in State v. Lewis, 9th Dist. No. 25661,
2011-Ohio-4069. In Lewis, this Court held that a trial court’s failure to impose R.C.
2925.03(D)(1)’s mandatory fine amounts to error, but does not void the defendant’s sentence.
Lewis at ¶ 5-6. The same result controls here. “[W]hile the trial court erred [by] fail[ing] to
impose a fine, [Rucker’s] sentence is not void” as a result. Id. at ¶ 6. As such, the trial court
correctly denied Rucker’s motion for resentencing. Rucker’s sole assignment of error is
overruled.
III
{¶6} Rucker’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
3
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
BETH WHITMORE
FOR THE COURT
MOORE, J.
DICKINSON, J.
CONCUR
APPEARANCES:
DEWITT RUCKER, pro se, Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.