State v. Johnson
2016 Ohio 7731
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Brian A. Johnson was indicted on multiple counts of rape and sexual battery; a jury convicted him (some counts amended to attempts) and the trial court imposed an aggregate 14-year prison sentence.
- Johnson’s direct appeal and several subsequent filings (including a first postconviction petition and an unsuccessful application to reopen) were litigated and mostly denied or affirmed by the appellate courts.
- He filed multiple motions for resentencing and postconviction relief; several were denied as successive or procedurally barred; the appellate court previously remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry clarifying that rape sentences were mandatory.
- On July 21, 2016 Johnson filed a second motion for resentencing; the trial court denied it the next day as a successive postconviction petition and for raising issues already adjudicated.
- Johnson appealed the denial; he argued the sentencing entry and process violated procedural requirements and his counsel (trial and appellate) was ineffective for failing to raise or preserve those defects.
- The Fifth District affirmed, concluding the motion was a successive petition for postconviction relief barred by R.C. 2953.23 and by res judicata, and therefore the trial court did not err in denying relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the July 2016 motion is a proper resentencing motion or a successive postconviction petition | Motion should be treated as resentencing (not subject to successive-petition limits) | Johnson argues it seeks resentencing and raises sentencing-entry defects | Court held it is a petition for postconviction relief and a successive petition barred by R.C. 2953.23 |
| Whether Johnson’s sentencing entry and procedures violated statutory/admin requirements and thus rendered the sentence void | Trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 32 and administrative/statutory rules, making the sentence void | Johnson asserts procedural defects deprived him of due process and equal protection | Court rejected the claim as reviewable in earlier proceedings and barred now by statute and res judicata |
| Whether res judicata precludes relitigation of issues raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal | N/A (State) — prior adjudications and direct appeal addressed sentencing claims | Johnson contends issues were not properly raised or preserved | Court applied Perry doctrine: prior final judgment and representation by counsel bars relitigation; claims could have been raised on direct appeal |
| Whether trial/appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to object to sentencing defects and failing to advise as to costs/indigency | Counsel’s failures caused constitutional ineffective-assistance prejudice | Johnson claims counsel failed to investigate indigency, inform re: costs, and object to sentencing defects | Court held ineffective-assistance arguments raised in the motion are successive/barred and could have been raised earlier; denied relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (motion may be ‘‘petition for postconviction relief’’ if filed after direct appeal and seeking vacation of conviction/sentence)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata bars raising issues in postconviction petition that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)