State v. Davic
2016 Ohio 4883
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Bradford S. Davic pled guilty to four counts of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), (B)), one count of felony importuning, and one count of gross sexual imposition arising from sexual conduct with a 12‑year‑old victim.
- Trial court imposed 10 years to life on each rape count, ordered consecutively (total 40 years to life), with importuning and GSI concurrent; Davic was classified a Tier III sex offender.
- Davic previously appealed; this court affirmed and the Ohio Supreme Court declined review. Federal habeas relief was dismissed.
- In 2015 Davic filed a motion for resentencing arguing his sentences were void and raising six discrete challenges (res judicata, sentencing outside statutory range, charge selection/equal protection, sex‑offender notification, sentencing‑package doctrine, post‑release control).
- Trial court denied relief under res judicata, finding no void sentences; Davic appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars relitigation of sentencing issues | State: prior final judgment and appeals preclude relitigation of issues that were or could have been raised | Davic: his motion raised sentencing voidness and other claims not barred | Court: res judicata applies except to claims the sentence is void; Davic's claims were barred except any showing of a void sentence |
| Whether sentences were imposed outside statutory authority (void) | State: sentences conformed to statutory ranges for the offenses charged | Davic: trial court lacked authority to sentence outside statutory range and violated due process | Court: Sentences for rape (10 years to life) and concurrent terms were within statutory range; not void |
| Whether charging/sentencing violated equal protection by using rape instead of sexual battery | State: charges matched the conduct and were properly pled | Davic: Equal Protection violated by sentencing under rape statute rather than sexual battery | Court: No equal protection issue raised below; cannot raise new theory on appeal; conviction matched conduct |
| Whether procedural defects (sex‑offender notification, sentencing‑package, post‑release control) rendered sentence void | State: court properly notified Davic of Tier III status, applied sentencing principles considering totality of conduct, and imposed statutory post‑release control | Davic: improper notification, improper use of sentencing‑package doctrine, and erroneous post‑release control | Court: Notifications were adequate; trial judge permissibly considered totality; post‑release control appropriately imposed; none of these made the sentence void |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (2007) (distinguishes void and voidable judgments)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (sentence not in accordance with statutory terms is void)
- State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350 (2012) (trial court lacks authority to revisit valid final criminal judgments)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (limits on reconsideration of final judgments)
- State v. White, 80 Ohio St.3d 335 (1997) (jurisdictional principles concerning finality)
- Perry v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata bars issues which were or could have been raised on direct appeal)