State v. Ford

[Cite as State v. Ford, 2012-Ohio-5050.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 26466
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
ERIC FORD COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 96 05 1198
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: October 31, 2012
WHITMORE, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Eric Ford, appeals from the judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I
{¶2} In 1996, Ford pleaded guilty to felonious assault with a firearm specification. The
court sentenced him to a mandatory three years in prison for the firearm specification and ten to
twenty-five years for felonious assault. The sentences were to be served consecutively, but
concurrently with his federal sentence. The court further ordered that Ford “be conveyed to the
Lorain Correctional Institution * * * to commence the prison intake procedure, and then returned
to the federal authorities to begin serving his federal sentence.”
{¶3} The federal authorities, however, would not take custody of Ford while he was
being held in state prison. In 1999, Ford filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea because he
had not begun to serve his federal prison sentence, despite the court ordering the sentences to be
2
served concurrently. In an apparent effort to resolve the problem, the trial court vacated Ford’s
sentence, granted him bond “upon verification of a Federal holder,” and ordered him released
into federal custody. The court further ordered that Ford be returned for re-sentencing on July 1,
1999.
{¶4} On February 16, 2000, on its own motion, the court reinstated Ford’s original
sentence.1 On May 2, 2012, Ford filed a motion for relief after judgment. The court denied his
motion and Ford now appeals and raises three assignments of error for our review. To facilitate
the analysis, we consolidate two of his assignments of error.
II
Assignment of Error Number One
THE TRIAL COURT DENIED APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF
AFTER JUDGMENT AS AN UNTIMELY PETITION FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF, AND DID NOT ADDRESS THE SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION ISSUE WITHIN THE MOTION, BECAUSE IT RULED THE
APPELLANT’S CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY RES JUDICATA[.]
Assignment of Error Number Two
APPELLANT’S SENTENCE IS VOID[.]
{¶5} In his first and second assignments of error, Ford argues that the court erred when
it denied his motion for relief after judgment. Specifically, Ford argues that the trial court no
longer had jurisdiction over him after it vacated his sentence and, as such, the court’s
reinstatement of his sentence is void and he should be released from prison. We agree that the
court’s reinstatement order is void, but disagree that the court erred in denying his motion for
relief after judgment.
1
The court incorrectly labeled this reinstatement entry as a nunc pro tunc order. On February
28, 2000, the court corrected the judgment entry by a nunc pro tunc.
3
{¶6} The validity of Ford’s sentencing entry presents a question of law. We review
questions of law de novo. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 64 Ohio St.3d 145, 147
(1992). When reviewing a matter de novo, this Court does not give deference to the trial court’s
decision. State v. Barclay, 9th Dist. No. 25646, 2011-Ohio-4770, ¶ 8.
{¶7} Ford argues that his sentencing entry was vacated in 1999, therefore, the court did
not have jurisdiction to resentence him in 2000. And because the resentencing entry was void,
he argues, the court’s nunc pro tunc entry on February 28, 2000, was also a nullity.
{¶8} The general rule is that a trial court has no authority to reconsider a valid, final
judgment in a criminal case. State ex rel. Hansen v. Reed, 63 Ohio St.3d 597, 599 (1992). See
also State v. Carlisle, 131 Ohio St.3d 127, 2011-Ohio-6553, ¶ 9. “A judgment of conviction is a
final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 when it sets forth (1) the guilty plea, the jury verdict,
or the finding of the court upon which the conviction is based; (2) the sentence; (3) the signature
of the judge; and (4) entry on the journal by the clerk of court.” State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d
197, 2008-Ohio-3330, syllabus, modified by State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-
5204.
{¶9} Ford’s original sentencing entry of December 19, 1996, was a final judgment.
The entry: (1) stated that his conviction was based on his guilty plea, (2) sentenced him to a
mandatory three years for the firearm specification to be served consecutively to a sentence of
ten to twenty-five years for felonious assault, (3) was signed by the sentencing judge, and (4)
was filed with the clerk of courts on December 23, 1996. Ford makes no argument, and the
record contains no evidence, that this entry was invalid. Because this sentencing entry was a
valid, final judgment in a criminal case, the trial court lacked the authority to vacate the sentence.
See State ex rel. Hansen at 599.
4
{¶10} In light of the foregoing, we vacate the court’s order vacating Ford’s valid
sentence and the court’s subsequent orders reinstating his original sentence. The trial court’s
original sentencing entry journalized on December 23, 1996, remains valid.
Motion for Relief from Judgment
{¶11} The trial court denied Ford’s motion for relief after judgment, finding that his
claims were barred by res judicata and that his motion was, in effect, an untimely petition for
post-conviction relief.
{¶12} Ford is correct in that the court’s entry reinstating his sentence is void. However,
this does not vacate his prior, valid sentence. The court’s decision to deny Ford’s request for
release, therefore, was not an error. Accordingly, Ford’s first and second assignments of error
are overruled.
Assignment of Error Number Three
THIS COURT (APPELLATE) LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
IN THIS CASE[.]
{¶13} In his third assignment of error, Ford argues that this Court is without subject
matter jurisdiction because the sentencing entry is void.
{¶14} “A Court has inherent power to vacate a void judgment because such an order
simply recognizes the fact that the judgment was always a nullity.” State v. Bedford, 184 Ohio
App.3d 588, 2009-Ohio-3972, ¶ 12 (9th Dist.), quoting Van DeRyt v. Van DeRyt, 6 Ohio St.2d
31, 36 (1966). Ford’s third assignment of error is overruled.
III
{¶15} Ford’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas denying Ford’s motion for relief after judgment is affirmed. The order
5
of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas that vacates Ford’s sentence and the court’s
subsequent orders reinstating his original sentence are vacated. The original sentencing entry
journalized on December 23, 1996, remains valid.
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
CARR, J.
DICKINSON, J.
CONCUR.
6
APPEARANCES:
ERIC FORD, pro se, Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.