State v. Richard E. Johnson, 96-LW-1564

• Decision Date: 05 June 1996
• Docket Number: 3-96-3,96-LW-1564,3-96-4
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. RICHARD E. JOHNSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CASE NUMBER 3-96-3, 3-96-4
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. RICHARD E. JOHNSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

No. 3-96-3, 3-96-4

96-LW-1564 (3rd)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District Crawford

June 5, 1996

Criminal Appeals from Common Pleas Court.

RICHARD E. JOHNSON, In Propria Persona, Inmate #281-571 Pickaway Correctional Institute, P.O. Box 209, Orient, OH 43146-0209, Appellant.

RUSSELL B. WISEMAN, Prosecuting Attorney, Rhonda G. Burggraf, Reg #0059943, 130 N. Walnut Street, P.O. Box 509, Bucyrus, OH 44820, For Appellee.

OPINION

SHAW J.

Defendant-appellant, Richard E. Johnson, appeals from two orders entered in the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas, denying his motions for resentencing and hearing.

On February 6, 1992, defendant was sentenced to consecutive one and one-half year terms of incarceration on five counts of passing bad checks pursuant to R.C. 2913.11. On September 17, 1993, defendant was subsequently sentenced to one to five years incarceration for failure to appear pursuant to R.C. 2937.99. Both the 1992 and 1993 sentences were ordered to be served consecutively.

On November 29 and December 27, 1995, defendant filed motions for resentencing and hearing in the trial court claiming that pursuant to R.C. 1.58(B), his sentences should be reduced based on the recent signing of Senate Bill 2. On December 12, 1995 and January 22, 1996, the trial court denied defendant's motions. Defendant filed two appeals from the trial court's denial of his two motions and we have consolidated both appeals for purposes of briefing and oral argument.

In support of his appeal, defendant, arguing pro se asserts the following two assignments of error:

I. The trial court erred in denying the motion for resentencing the defendant, thus denying the defendant the right to a remedy, due process, and the equal protection of the law for all persons, which has resulted in a violation of the defendant's equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

II. [sic] State referenced Section 5 and Section 6 of Senate Bill 2 and defendant submits that Section 5 and Section 6 of Senate Bill 2 are arbitrary, and irrational, go against legislative intent, establish a distinct class of people, and thereby violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States and Ohio, and being unconstitutional, Sections 5 and Section 6 need be severed per O.R.C. Section 1.50.

Defendant's two assignments of error concern the constitutionality of Senate Bill 2 and the applicability of Senate Bill 2 to his sentence. Due to their similarity, we will address defendant's two assignments of error collectively.

Defendant contends that Senate Bill 2 should be retroactively applied to his sentence and/or declared unconstitutional. In State v. Homan (Feb. 13, 1996), Mercer App. No. 10-95-13, unreported, we recently addressed a similar claim concerning the applicability and constitutionality of Senate Bill 2. In Homan, supra, we st...