State v. Wooden
2016 Ohio 7465
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2001 John Wooden was indicted and later convicted of multiple offenses arising from the kidnapping and rape of a 13-year-old; he received a 29-year sentence and was classified a sexual predator.
- Wooden appealed and this court affirmed his convictions in 2003 (Wooden I). He pursued various postconviction/resentencing filings over the years, including challenges after State v. Foster and resentencing proceedings in 2010–2011 (Wooden II).
- In 2010 the trial court reimposed the original sentence and notified Wooden of post-release control; this court later held the reissued sentence was improper under Fischer but treated the original lawful portion as remaining in place.
- On November 4, 2015 Wooden filed a pro se motion to vacate his original sentence, claiming (1) lack of post-release control notice, (2) failure to state reasons and sequence for consecutive terms, and (3) failure to merge kidnapping and rape as allied offenses.
- The trial court denied the motion as barred by res judicata. Wooden appealed; the Ninth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Wooden's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wooden's 2015 motion to vacate sentence is barred by res judicata | Wooden: original sentence was void (no PRC notice; no findings/reasoning or sequence for consecutive terms; allied-offense merger required), so res judicata does not apply | State: original sentence was lawful; the claims could have been raised on direct appeal and therefore are barred by res judicata | Court: Res judicata bars the claims; Wooden's assignment of error overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (articulates Ohio res judicata rule barring relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (addresses post-release control errors and effect on sentencing; clarifies that certain errors do not render an entire sentence void)
- Hood v. Diamond Prod., Inc., 137 Ohio App.3d 9 (9th Dist. 2000) (explains law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Pipe Fitters Union Local No. 392 v. Kokosing Constr. Co., Inc., 81 Ohio St.3d 214 (1998) (discusses binding effect of prior appellate rulings in the same case)