State v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 23 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 108419,108419 |
| Citation | 2020 Ohio 191 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICKY JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Appearances:
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Ricky Johnson, a.k.a. Rodney Knuckles, pro se.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Ricky Johnson, a.k.a. Rodney Knuckles, appeals pro se from the trial court's denial of his "motion to vacate void sentence & court plea hearing" filed after several successive postconviction relief petitions and more than 30 years after he was sentenced. Because we find Johnson's sentence was not void and res judicata bars this appeal, we affirm the trial court.
{¶ 2} Johnson was indicted for murder in 1981. A jury convicted him of murder, and the court sentenced Johnson to 15 years to life in prison. In 1982, this court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial on the ground that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of self-defense. State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 44160, 1982 Ohio App. LEXIS 15386 (July 15, 1982). Johnson waived his right to a jury in the second trial, which began in April 1983. Following a new trial, the court found Johnson guilty of murder and sentenced him to 15 years to life imprisonment. Johnson appealed his conviction, raising two assignments of error regarding the admission of testimonial evidence. Having found no merit to the appeal, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 46837, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 13810 (Dec. 8, 1983).
{¶ 3} Following his appeal in 1983, Johnson filed several petitions for postconviction relief, all of which were denied. See State v. Knuckles, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101309, 2014-Ohio-3823, ¶ 3. In May 2013, Johnson filed a "motion pursuant to ORC 2945.05, that the trial court was without jurisdiction to conduct a bench trial." In this motion, Johnson argued that there was no written jury waiver executed in his case. The trial court denied the motion, and Johnson appealed. In November 2013, this court dismissed the appeal for Johnson's failure to file a brief. Id. at ¶ 3. In February 2014, Johnson filed another postconviction petition for relief, raising the same arguments addressed in his May 2013 motion. The trial court denied Johnson's motion, and he once again appealed. In September 2014, this court dismissed Johnson's appeal, finding Johnson's "blatant attempt to circumvent the appellate rules and prior decisions of this court requires the dismissal of the instant appeal." Id. at ¶ 8.
{¶ 4} Also in 2014, Johnson filed an application for reopening of his appeal under App.R. 26(B). Finding Johnson "failed to argue or establish a showing of good cause for the untimely filing of his application for reopening," we denied his application for reopening. State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 46837, 2014-Ohio-2972.
{¶ 5} In August 2016, Johnson filed another petition for postconviction relief entitled "postconviction relief pursuant to [R.C.] 2953.21 to 2953.23," arguing that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore his conviction is void. And in September 2016, Johnson filed a motion for summary judgment on his petition for postconviction relief. The trial court denied the petition and the motion.
{¶ 6} In September 2017, Johnson filed a "motion to vacate void sentence [under] Crim.R. 47," arguing that a defective jury waiver in his case renders his conviction void. The trial court denied the motion, and Johnson appealed. In a journal entry dated November 20, 2017, this court dismissed the appeal, finding that Johnson raised the same issue concerning the validity of a jury waiver in a prior appeal and therefore res judicata bars this appeal.
{¶ 7} In March 2019, Johnson filed a "motion to vacate void sentence & court plea hearing," which is the subject of this appeal.
{¶ 8} Johnson claims in this appeal, for the first time since his conviction more than 30 years ago, that the trial court imposed a sentence that is not authorized by law and therefore void because the trial court failed to include the term "indefinite" in the court's sentencing entry imposing a 15-year-to-life prison sentence. Johnson also contends that the court's failure to include the term "indefinite" prevented him from receiving a deduction from his minimum sentence.
{¶ 9} The doctrine of res judicata bars a defendant "from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from [a final] judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial which resulted in that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from that judgment." State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 180, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967). And sentencing errors not raised on direct appeal are generally barred by the doctrine of res judicata. State v. Willard, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101055, 2014-Ohio-5278, ¶ 10. Void sentences, however, are an exception to the res judicata doctrine and may be reviewed at any time, either on direct appeal or by collateral attack. State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332, ¶ 30; State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105873, 2018-Ohio-688, ¶ 9. "A void judgment has no legal force or effect, and any party whose rights are affected may challenge its invalidity at any time and any place." Willard at ¶ 11.
{¶ 10} Ohio courts have consistently held that a sentence that is not in accordance with statutorily mandated terms is void. Fischer at ¶ 8, citing State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961; State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-6085, 817 N.E.2d 864; State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74, 75, 471 N.E.2d 774 (1984); Colegrove v. Burns, 175 Ohio St. 437, 195 N.E.2d 811 (1964). And where a trial court "'disregard[s] statutory [sentencing] requirements,'" the sentence imposed is void. State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403, 2016-Ohio-7658, 71 N.E.3d 234, ¶ 20, quoting Beasley at 75; State v. Houston, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107538, 2019-Ohio-355, ¶ 5.
{¶ 11} Here, Johnson was convicted of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02, which, at the time of Johnson's conviction, provided that "[n]o person shall purposely cause the death of another." At the time of Johnson's sentencing in 1983, R.C. 2929.02(B), the applicable sentencing statute for murder at that time, provided that "[w]hoever is convicted of, pleads guilty to, or pleads no contest and is found guilty of, murder in violation of [R.C.] 2903.02 shall be imprisoned for an indefinite term of fifteen years to life * * *." On April 8, 1983, the trial court sentenced Johnson to a correctional facility "for a term of fifteen (15) years to life * * *."
{¶ 12} Johnson claims that the trial court's failure to include "indefinite" in his sentence renders his sentence void. In support, he cites to State v. Banks, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-890219, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 2928 (July 18, 1990), and State v. Houston, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107538, 2019-Ohio-355.
{¶ 13} In Banks, the defendant was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to "a term of life with parole eligibility after serving twenty (20) full years of imprisonment." Id. at 11. The applicable sentencing statute, however, mandated that the trial court "impose a sentence of life imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving twenty years of imprisonment." R.C. 2929.03(C)(1). The First District Court of Appeals stated that pursuant to R.C. 2967.19(B) and 2967.13(C), the defendant, who is serving a sentence of life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 20 years imprisonment for aggravated murder is entitled to be eligible for parole prior to serving 20 years' imprisonment if he or she "faithfully observes and obeys the rules of the institution." Id. at 12-13. But under the sentence imposed by the trial court of "twenty full years," the defendant "is not entitled to any diminution in time and is not eligible for parole until he serves the 20 years in prison." Id. at 13-14. Thus, the additional word "full" was not only not in the applicable sentencing provision, but it effectively prevented the defendant from being eligible for parole until he served 20 years in prison, contrary to the statute applicable to the defendant's sentence. The First District therefore vacated the defendant's sentence and remanded for a resentencing. Id. at 14.
Houston at ¶ 6, citing R.C. 2929.03(A). This court noted in Houston that the indictment charging the defendant with aggravated murder "did not allege 'one or more specifications of aggravating circumstances listed in division (A) of section of 2929.04 of the Revised Code.'" Therefore, pursuant to R.C. 2929.03(A), the defendant's sentence should have included parole eligibility after serving 20 years of imprisonment. Because Houston's sentence did not include parole eligibility as mandated by statute, his...
To continue reading
Request your trial