History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Askew
2011 Ohio 687
Ohio Ct. App.
2011
Check Treatment
O P I N I O N
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
I
II, III, & IV
JUDGMENT ENTRY
Notes

STATE OF OHIO v. SERO D. ASKEW

Case No. 2010CA00069

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

February 14, 2011

2011-Ohio-687

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.; Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.; Hon. John W. Wise, J.

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2004CR0449; JUDGMENT: Affirmed

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee

JOHN D. FERRERO
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
STARK COUNTY, OHIO

BY: KATHLEEN O. TATARSKY
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Appellate Section
110 Central Plaza, South - Suite 510
Canton, Ohio 44702-1413

For Defendant-Appellant

DEREK J. LOWRY
Crawford, Lowry & Associates
116 Cleveland Avenue N.W.
Suite 800
Canton, Ohio 44702

O P I N I O N

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Sero D. Askew appeals the March 23, 2010 Judgment Entry entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas which resentenced him on three counts of trafficking in cocaine and three counts of possession of cocaine, together with a major drug offender specification. The State of Ohio is plaintiff-appellee.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} Appellant pled no contest to the aforementioned charges. The trial court entered convictions thereon and sentenced Appellant via Judgment Entry journalized August 4, 2004.

{¶3} Appellant filed a direct appeal from the August 4, 2004 Judgment Entry in this Court. We affirmed the trial court‘s judgment entry. See,

State v. Askew, Stark App. No. 2004-CA-00275, 2005-Ohio-3194.

{¶4} As pertinent to this appeal, Appellant was resentenced by the trial court pursuant to the direction of the Ohio Supreme Court as pronounced in

State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434. The new sentence was journalized March 23, 2010. It is from that judgment entry Appellant prosecutes this appeal assigning as error2:

{¶5} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT‘S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA.

{¶6} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ACCEPTING THE APPELLANT‘S GUILTY PLEA WITHOUT ADVISING HIM OF THE CORRECT TERM OF POST-RELEASE CONTROL.

{¶7} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERR [SIC] BY DENYING THE APPELLANT‘S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

{¶8} “IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE CHARGES OF POSSESSION COCAINE TO BE ALLIED OFFENSES WITH THE RELATED CHARGES OF TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE AND MERGE THESE COUNTS FOR SENTENCING.”

I

{¶9} During his resentencing hearing pursuant to

Singleton, Appellant orally asked to withdraw his plea. The trial court conducted a hearing at that time with respect to Appellant‘s motion. The trial court denied Appellant‘s request. In his first assignment of error, Appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion by so doing.

{¶10} We need not analyze the merits of Appellant‘s argument as it is clear the trial court is without jurisdiction to vacate Appellant‘s plea after this Court has affirmed his conviction. See,

State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Belmont County Court of Common Pleas (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 94. The Ohio Supreme Court recently reaffirmed its holding in
Special Prosecutors
in
State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831
. Based upon the foregoing authority, Appellant‘s first assignment of error is overruled.

II, III, & IV

{¶11} Because the same rationale for our decision applies to all three of these assignments of error, we shall address them together.

{¶12} The entry under review was generated in accordance with the procedure set forth in

Singleton to correct errors and/or deficiencies involving notification and journalization of post release control sanctions, committed during a defendant‘s initial sentencing. Appellant‘s present assignments of error were or could have been raised in his initial appeal to this Court.

{¶13} This Court has repeatedly held such resentencings do not allow a defendant to challenge anew his convictions(s) as such is barred under the principles of law of the case and/or res judicata. This Court‘s position has been validated by two recent Ohio Supreme Court decisions:

State v. Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283; and
State v. Fischer, 2010-Ohio-6238
. Pursuant to
Ketterer
and
Fischer
, Appellant‘s two assignments of error are overruled.

{¶14} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur

s/ William B. Hoffman

HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN

s/ W. Scott Gwin

HON. W. SCOTT GWIN

s/ John W. Wise

HON. JOHN W. WISE

STATE OF OHIO v. SERO D. ASKEW

Case No. 2010CA00069

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the March 23, 2010 Judgment Entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to Appellant.

s/ William B. Hoffman

HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN

s/ W. Scott Gwin

HON. W. SCOTT GWIN

s/ John W. Wise

HON. JOHN W. WISE

Notes

1
A rendition of the facts is unnecessary for our disposition of this appeal.
2
On September 30, 2010, Appellant filed a Supplemental Brief of Appellant pro se. Appellant was represented by counsel in this appeal, who filed the Brief of Appellant on August 31, 2010. This Court will not recognize Appellant‘s pro se supplemental brief as it was submitted without leave of this Court.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Askew
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Feb 14, 2011
Citation: 2011 Ohio 687
Docket Number: 2010CA00069
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.
Read the detailed case summary
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.