STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. TYRELL E. ARTIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 8-21-12
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY
July 6, 2021
[Cite as State v. Artis, 2021-Ohio-2296.]
OPINION. Aрpeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court, Trial Court No. CR-18-05-0140. Judgment Affirmed.
Tyrell E. Artis Appellant
Alice Robinson-Bond for Appellee
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Tyrell E. Artis (“Artis“), pro se, appeals the March 18, 2021 judgment of the Logan County Cоurt of Common Pleas denying his post-conviction Motion to Vacate Conviction and/or Sentence.
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On May 8, 2018, (in case number CR18-05-0140) the Logan County Grand Jury returned a two-cоunt indictment against Artis alleging that he committed one count of domestic violence, in violation of
{¶3} On August 21, 2018, the trial court imposed a prison term of 36 months upоn Artis for the domestic violence conviction, and a prison term of 24 months for the abduction conviction. The trial court ordered the prison terms to run consеcutively for an aggregate prison term of 60 months.
{¶4} Artis filed a direct appeal to this Court of the August 21, 2018 Judgment Entry of conviction and sentence. We affirmed this judgment on May 28, 2019.
{¶5} On October 29, 2019, Artis filed motions in the Bellefontaine Municipal Court (in case numbers 11 CRB 01721 and 11 CRB 01850) to withdraw his guilty pleas underlying his 2011 domestic violence convictions, arguing that his pleas were uncounseled and therefore invalid. The State opposed Artis‘s motions, and on November 5, 2019, the municipal court issued judgments denying Artis‘s motions to withdraw his guilty pleas. Artis appealed the municipal court‘s denial of his motions to withdraw his pleas, maintaining the challenge to the validity of his guilty pleas in his 2011 domestic violence convictions. This Court affirmed the judgments of the municipal court on the basis that Artis‘s claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See State v. Artis, Nos. 8-19-52, 8-19-53, 2020-Ohio-4018.
{¶6} On February 12, 2021, (in case number CR18-05-0140) Artis filed a Motion to Vacate Conviction and/or Sentence, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose a felony sentence for his 2018 domestic violence conviction on his contention that the charge should have been a misdemeanor. This contention was based upon his allegation that his 2011 guilty pleas in his prior domestic violence convictions were uncounseled with no valid waiver of counsel. Artis also
{¶7} The State filed a memorandum in opposition arguing that Artis‘s motion was an untimely petition for post-conviction relief, being filed outside of the 365-day statutory timeframe, and that in any event the claims raised in the motion were barred by res judicata beсause Artis could have raised the issue in his direct appeal of the 2018 judgment entry of conviction and sentence but failed to do so. The State also noted that Artis had stipulated at the jury trial to the authenticity of his prior 2011 domestic violence convictions as a matter of trial strategy. Artis filed a reply to the State‘s oрposition arguing that his motion was not a petition for postconviction relief.
{¶8} On March 18, 2021, the trial court issued a judgment entry overruling Artis‘s motion. The trial court construed thе motion as a petition for postconviction relief and found that the motion was untimely and failed to meet any exceptions to the applicatiоn of the statutory timeframe. The trial court also determined that Artis‘s claims could have been raised in his direct appeal and therefore were barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
{¶9} It is from this judgment that Artis now appeals, asserting the following assignment of error.
THE TRIAL COURT‘S STANDARD OF REVIEW OF APPELLANT‘S MOTION TO VACATE A VOID CONVICTION AND OR SENTENCE IS CONTRARY TO THE
{¶10} In his sole assignment of error, Artis argues that the trial court erred in оverruling his Motion to Vacate Conviction and/or Sentence. Specifically, he claims that his 2011 misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence are void, not voidable, and therefore could not have been used to enhance the domestic violence offense from a misdemeanor to a felоny in his 2018 case. Notably, Artis fails to make any argument on appeal regarding the trial court‘s treatment of his motion as an untimely petition for post-conviction relief.
Legal Authority
{¶11} “A vaguely titled motion, including a motion to correct or vacate a judgment or sentence, may be construed as a petition for postconviction relief under
{¶12} “A postconviction proceeding is not an appeal of a criminal conviction, but, rather, a collateral civil attack on the judgment. Postcоnviction review is a narrow remedy, since res judicata bars any claim that was or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.” State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399, 410 (1994) (Citation omitted). “[A] trial court‘s decision granting or denying a postconviction petition filed pursuant to
{¶13} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “where a criminal defendant, subsequеnt to his or her direct appeal, files a motion seeking vacation or correction of his or her sentence [or conviction] on the basis that his or her constitutional rights have been violated, such a motion is a petition for postconviction relief as defined in
{¶14} Additionally, it is longstanding Ohio law that “res judicata [is] a proper basis upon which to dismiss without hearing an
Analysis
{¶15} At the outset, we find no error in the trial court‘s determination that Artis‘s Motion to Vacate Conviction and/or Sentence meets the сriteria for a petition for postconviction relief. Moreover, the record confirms the trial court‘s finding that Artis filed his motion for postconviction relief more than 365 days after the trial transcripts were filed in his direct appeal.1 As noted by the trial court, pursuant to
{¶16} Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court was justified in dismissing Artis‘s postconviction relief motion for lack of jurisdiction because he did not file it in a timely manner. This notwithstanding, we further conclude that Artis‘s arguments on appeal are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as he failed to raise this issue in a direct appeal of the municipal court‘s 2011 judgment еntries
{¶17} Based on the foregoing, the assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and MILLER, J.J., concur.
/hls