State v. Cockroft
2017 Ohio 7614
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2003 a Franklin County grand jury indicted Anthony Cockroft for aggravated robbery, aggravated murder, attempted murder, and tampering with evidence; a jury convicted him in 2004.
- The trial court sentenced Cockroft; this court affirmed, but the Ohio Supreme Court remanded for resentencing under State v. Foster.
- On remand in 2006 the trial court reimposed the same sentences; this court again affirmed the resentencing.
- In October 2016 Cockroft filed a motion asking for resentencing so the trial court would issue a final, appealable judgment entry, arguing the 2006 entry failed to include the "fact of conviction" as required by Crim.R. 32(C).
- The trial court denied the motion; Cockroft appealed the denial to the Tenth District Court of Appeals.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding (1) procedural defects in the appeal (no assignments of error) and (2) on the merits the 2006 entry did include the fact of conviction and, alternatively, res judicata barred the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cockroft’s appeal is properly presented without assignments of error | N/A (appellant failed to assign errors) | Cockroft proceeded pro se and filed an appellate brief challenging the denial | Appeal improper on procedural grounds; appellate court notes failure to comply with App.R. 12/16 but proceeds to address merits in fairness |
| Whether the 2006 judgment entry complied with Crim.R. 32(C) by stating the fact of conviction | State (trial court/appellee) contends the entry did include language stating jury verdicts finding Cockroft guilty | Cockroft contends the 2006 entry omitted the "fact of conviction" and therefore was not a final, appealable order | Court held the 2006 entry did state the fact of conviction (it recited the jury verdicts) and satisfied Crim.R. 32(C) |
| Whether res judicata bars Cockroft’s challenge to the 2006 entry | State argues the claim could have been raised on direct appeal from the 2006 judgment and is barred | Cockroft argues the entry was defective and necessitates resentencing to create a final order | Court held res judicata bars the claim because it could have been raised on direct appeal from the 2006 judgment |
| Remedy if entry lacked the fact of conviction | State notes the proper remedy is a nunc pro tunc entry to add required language, not a new resentencing | Cockroft sought resentencing to obtain a final appealable order | Court observed that even if deficient, the remedy would be a nunc pro tunc correction, which is not a new final appealable order |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (constitutional severance of certain sentencing statutes requiring resentencing)
- In re Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 313 (2006) (companion decisions addressing sentencing-law changes and remands)
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (Crim.R. 32(C) "fact of conviction" requirement satisfied by recitation of jury verdict)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (nunc pro tunc corrections adding language to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) do not constitute new final orders for appeal)