STATE OF OHIO v. DANA BEECHLER
C.A. CASE NO. 2014 CA 11
T.C. NO. 09CR72
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO
August 1, 2014
[Cite as State v. Beechler, 2014-Ohio-3350.]
(Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court)
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
DANA BEECHLER, #606-639, London Correctional Institute, P. O. Box 69, London, Ohio 43140
Defendant-Appellant
O P I N I O N
Rendered on the 1st day of August, 2014.
DONOVAN, J.
{¶ 1} This mattеr is before the Court on the pro se Notice of Appeal of Dana
{¶ 2} Beechler was convicted on May 20, 2009, following a trial by jury, on one count of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol оr drugs (“OMVI“), in violation of
{¶ 3} Beechler filed his motion for relief from judgment on Novеmber 7, 2013, asserting that “failure to list all the five FELONY, O.V.I. s in the indictment relinquishes jurisdiction to the trial court,” and that the “verdict forms were void” in that “there was no felony degree listed on the jury verdict forms and there were not five felony O.V.I. s listed
{¶ 4} Beechler asserts two assignments of error which we will consider tоgether. They are as follows:
“THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO SENTENCE THE APPELLANT TO A THIRD DEGREE FELONY THAT WAS NOT ON THE FACE OF THE INDICTMENT CAUSING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT‘S SENTENCE TO BE VOID.”
And,
“THE TRIAL SENTENCING JUDGE HAS NO AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION TO SENTENCE BEYOND THE TRIAL JURY‘S MISDEANOR (sic) JURY VERDICT FORM.”
{¶ 5} We agree with the State that Beechler‘s arguments are barred by the dоctrine of res judicata. The Ohio Supreme Court, in State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St. 2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), syllabus at ¶ 9, determined:
Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or claimed lack of due prоcess that was raised or could have been raised by
the defendant at the trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment.
See also, State v. Handcock, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2012-CA-87, 2013-Ohio-3275, ¶ 14 (holding that a verdict form convicting Handcock of carrying a concealed weapon, as a felony of the fourth degree, that neither stated the dеgree of the offense nor stated that either the firearm was loaded or that the defendant had ammunition ready at hand, was voidable, not void, and that the “error in the verdict form of which Handcock complаins, could, and should, have been raised in his direct appeal.“)
{¶ 6} Although not required to conduct further analysis, wе additionally conclude that Beechler‘s assigned errors lack merit.
(A) When the presence of onе or more additional elements makes an offense one of more serious degree:
(1) The affidavit, сomplaint, indictment or information either shall state the degree of the offense which the accused is alleged to have committed, or shall allege such additional element or elements. Otherwise, such аffidavit, complaint, indictment, or information is effective to charge only the least degree of the оffense.
(2) A guilty verdict shall state either the degree of the offense of which the offender is found guilty, or that such additional element or elements are present. Otherwise a guilty verdict constitutes a finding of guilty of the least dеgree of the offense charged.
{¶ 7}
{¶ 8} Since res judicata bars Beechler‘s arguments, and since the indictment and verdict forms each include the additional element elevating the offense to a felony of the third degree, Beechler‘s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
HALL, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Ryan A. Saunders
Dana Beechler
Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter