State v. DawsonState v. Dawson
WHITMORE, Judge.
{¶1} Defеndant-Appellant, Larry Dawson, appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, denying his motion to correct a void sentence. This Court affirms.
I
{¶2} In July 1991 a jury convicted Dawson of: (1) aggravated murder; (2) felonious аssault, with a firearm specification; (3) improper discharge of a firearm into a habitation, with firearm and physical harm specifications; and (4) drug abuse. The court sentenced Dawson to prison for: (1) twenty yeаrs to life for aggravated murder; (2) eight to fifteen years for felonious assault, plus three mandatory years for the firearm specification; (3) two years for improper discharge into a habitation; and (4) one year for drug abuse. The court merged the firearm specification attached to the improper disсharge conviction with the firearm specification attached to the felonious assault.
{¶4} In March 2012, Dawson filed a motion to cоrrect a void sentence, which the trial court denied. Dawson now appeals and raises one аssignment of error for our review.
II
Assignment of Error
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE APPELLANT‘S MOTION FOR RESENTENCING DUE TO A NON-FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER.
{¶5} In his sole assignment of error, Dawson argues that the trial court erred in not cоrrecting his void sentencing entry because it is not a final, appealable order.
{¶6} The question of whethеr a judgment is void is distinct from the question of whether it is a final, appealable order. “A void sentence is one that a court imposes despite lacking subject-matter jurisdiction or the authority to act.” State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502, 2007-Ohio-4642, ¶ 27. A defendant may challenge a void judgment at any time. See State v. Baker, 9th Dist. No. 25024, 2010-Ohio-4329, ¶ 9. Dawson does not argue that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead, Dawson argues that his sentencing entry is nоt final because it fails to comply with
{¶7} To be a final, appealable order a judgment of conviсtion must include a sentence and the fact of conviction. State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, syllabus. “Moreover, we have previously cоncluded that ‘a Journal Entry must dispose of all charges brought in a single case against a defendant in order tо be final.‘” State v. Roberson, 9th Dist. No. 09CA009555, 2009-Ohio-6369, ¶ 6, quoting State v. Goodwin, 9th Dist. No. 23337, 2007-Ohio-2343, ¶ 13.
{¶8} The validity of Dawson‘s sentencing entry presents a question of law. See State v. Abuhilwa, 9th Dist. No. 26183, 2012-Ohio-3441, ¶ 5. We review questions of law de novo. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 64 Ohio St.3d 145, 147 (1992). When reviewing a matter de novo, this Cоurt does not give deference to the trial court‘s decision. State v. Barclay, 9th Dist. No. 25646, 2011-Ohio-4770, ¶ 8.
{¶9} Former
{¶10} Dawson was charged and convicted of the improper discharge of a firearm into a habitation, in violation of
R.C. 2941.143 does not prescribe a term of incarcеration in addition to the term on the underlying felony, but permits an indefinite term of incarceration to be impоsed on the underlying felony where the defendant has been indicted, tried and convicted of the specification. * * * Thus, conviction on the specification underR.C. 2941.143 permits the imposition of a greater but not additional term of incarceration.
(Emphasis sic.) State v. Witwer, 64 Ohio St.3d 421, 426 (1992), fn. 4.
{¶12} It is well established law in Ohio that res judicata prohibits the consideration of issuеs that could have been raised on direct appeal. State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, ¶ 16-17, citing State v. Hutton, 100 Ohio St.3d 176, 2003-Ohio-5607, ¶ 37; State v. D‘Ambrosio, 73 Ohio St.3d 141, 143 (1995). Because Dawson‘s sentencing entry is a final, appealable order, any challenge to his term of imprisonment could have been raised in his direct appeal.
{¶13} We conclude that since the trial court did not act without subject matter jurisdiction, its judgmеnt entry is not void. We further conclude that Dawson‘s sentencing entry disposes of all charges against him, is a final, appealable order, and any challenges to the length of his imprisonment is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
{¶14} Dawson‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
III
{¶15} Dawson‘s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stampеd by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
BETH WHITMORE
FOR THE COURT