State v. Ball
2014 Ohio 2662
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2006 Donovon L. Ball was indicted on multiple counts of rape and gross sexual imposition; after a bench trial he was convicted of one count of rape and sentenced in 2007.
- Ball appealed his conviction to this court in 2008 and argued only evidentiary error; this court affirmed the conviction in State v. Ball, No. 07AP-818, 2008-Ohio-2648.
- In April 2013 Ball filed a motion to correct sentence asserting: (1) an incorrect journal entry, (2) improper imposition of post-release control (PRC), (3) failure to make findings/consider factors under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, and (4) failure to impose sexual-registration sanctions under R.C. 2950 and R.C. 2929.13(I).
- The trial court denied the motion, ruling the sentencing was proper and that many claims were barred because the sentence was final.
- Ball appealed the denial; the Tenth District considered res judicata for most claims and reviewed the PRC issue on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ball) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the claims about an "incorrect journal entry" and sentencing-factor findings are barred by res judicata | State: The claims could have been raised on direct appeal and are therefore barred by res judicata | Ball: The journal entry and sentencing findings are incorrect and subject to correction now | Held: Claims 1, 3, and 4 are barred by res judicata and overruled |
| 2. Whether post-release control was properly imposed | State: Trial court’s combined oral statements and written entries sufficiently notified Ball of PRC | Ball: PRC was not properly imposed because he was not orally advised of PRC consequences and length | Held: PRC was properly imposed when oral statements and written sentencing documents are read together; assignment overruled |
| 3. Whether the trial court failed to consider sentencing factors (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12) | State: Any claim about failure to consider factors should have been raised on direct appeal and is barred | Ball: Trial court did not make required findings/considerations at sentencing | Held: Barred by res judicata and overruled |
| 4. Whether sexual-registration sanctions (R.C. 2950/2929.13(I)) were improperly imposed | State: Challenge to sexual-registration classification/sanctions arose from the 2007 sentencing and is subject to res judicata | Ball: Trial court failed to properly impose/advise about registration duties | Held: Barred by res judicata and overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010) (explaining res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (establishing the doctrine of res judicata for criminal convictions)
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008) (holding improper PRC notification can render that portion of a sentence void)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009) (explaining the trial court must notify a defendant of PRC at sentencing and in the judgment entry)