State v. Mack
2017 Ohio 7417
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1994 Levio D. Mack pled guilty to a stipulated lesser included count of aggravated murder (with a firearm specification) and to aggravated robbery; the journal entry mistakenly described aggravated murder as "a Felony of the First degree."
- The court sentenced Mack to 20 years to life for aggravated murder, +3 years for the firearm spec, and 6–25 years for robbery, to be served consecutively.
- Mack filed postconviction motions over the years; in 2015 he filed a "motion for sentencing" seeking resentencing on the ground the 1994 entry was void due to the misclassification and alleged failure to state sequence of consecutive terms.
- The trial court denied relief in September 2016, finding the misstatement was a clerical error (correctable under Crim.R. 36), the judgment was voidable (not void), and the claim was barred by res judicata; the court issued a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the error.
- Mack also raised (1) a claim that ODRC had altered his life-term to "888" years, based on an unauthenticated ODRC printout, and (2) a claim that the court improperly treated his shock-probation motion as one for judicial release.
- The appellate court affirmed: res judicata barred the sentencing claim; the ODRC material was outside the record and, even if accurate, reflected ODRC bookkeeping rather than a sentence modification; and the court lacked jurisdiction to review the shock-probation/judicial-release denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mack) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1994 judgment entry is void such that resentencing is required | Judgment was voidable clerical error and subject to Crim.R.36; claim barred by res judicata | Entry misclassified aggravated murder as first-degree felony and failed to state sequence of consecutive terms, rendering judgment void | Court: Res judicata bars claim; misclassification was clerical error correctable nunc pro tunc; judgment voidable, not void — no resentencing required |
| Whether ODRC altered/modified Mack’s life sentence to 888 years | ODRC printout reflects bookkeeping only and does not alter the court-imposed sentence | ODRC unconstitutionally changed life term to 888 years (document attached to brief) | Court: Document not part of record and argument not raised below; even if authentic, it reflects ODRC’s numeric representation of a life maximum, not a sentence modification; claim fails |
| Whether recasting shock-probation as judicial release violated due process/equal protection | N/A to State on appeal | Trial court violated procedural rights by denying shock probation under judicial release statute instead of R.C. 2929.201 | Court: Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review because Mack did not timely appeal that entry; additionally, denial of shock probation/judicial release is not a final, appealable order and Mack was ineligible for shock probation due to aggravated-robbery conviction |
| Availability of appeal and procedural bars (res judicata / final order) | Final judgment and procedural rules bar Mack’s new challenges | Claims can be raised collateral attack because of alleged voidness | Court: Res judicata bars attacks on voidable judgments; only truly void judgments are open anytime; denial of judicial-release/shock-probation not appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (establishes res judicata bar to claims that were or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)
- Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427 (2014) (distinguishes void and voidable judgments; void judgments open to collateral attack)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (defines void vs. voidable; Crim.R.36 permits correction of clerical errors)
- State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (void/voidable discussion cited in Fischer)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (res judicata principles applied to criminal appeals)
- State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (a reviewing court cannot add matters outside the trial-court record)
- State v. Coffman, 91 Ohio St.3d 125 (denial of judicial release or similar post-sentence relief is not a final, appealable order)
- State v. Smith, 89 Ohio App.3d 497 (definition/understanding of a life sentence as having a statutory maximum of life)