State v. Ford
2012 Ohio 4384
Ohio Ct. App.
2012
Check Treatment
Case Information

*1 [Cite as State v. Ford , 2012-Ohio-4384.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO C.A. No.

Appellee

v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE ERIC L. FORD COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Aрpellant CASE No. CR 93 04 0840 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: September 26, 2012

WHITMORE, Presiding Judge. Defendant-Appellant, Eric Ford, appeals from the judgment of the Summit

County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

I In 1993, Ford was indicted on two counts ‍‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‍of having weapons under disability and

one count of felony possession of cocaine. Later that same year, he agreеd to plead guilty to amended charges. Specifically, he plеaded guilty to two counts of aggravated trafficking. The trial court sentenced Ford to three years in prison, and Ford served his sentence. In 2012, Ford filed a motion for relief after judgment in which he sought to

challenge his 1993 convictions. In his motion, Ford argued (1) the trial court could not permit the State to amend his indictment because the amendment changed the idеntity of his offenses, (2) his attorney was ineffective for allowing him to plead guilty to the amendment, (3) his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enterеd, (4) his constitutional rights were *2 violated because the amendment to his indiсtment was never presented to the Grand Jury, and (5) his money had been forfeited without a forfeiture hearing. The trial court denied Ford’s motion on its face. Ford now appeals and raises one assignment of error for our review.

II

Assignment of Error

THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS VOID BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONVICT THE APPELLANT FOR ‍‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‍THE CRIME FOR WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED. In his sole assignment of error, Ford argues that his 1993 convictions are void

because the amendment to his indictment changed the idеntity of his offenses and was never presented to the grand jury so as to invоke the jurisdiction of the court. We do not reach the merits of Ford’s аrgument as it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. “[A] person convicted of a felony has a substantial stake in the judgment of

conviction whiсh survives the satisfaction of the judgment imposed upon him or her.” State v. Golston , 71 Ohio St.3d 224, 227 (1994). Morеover, a void judgment may be attacked at any time. State v. Blankenship , 111 Ohio App.3d 198, 200 (9th Dist.1996). The errors Ford raised in his motion to vacate, however, are not errors that would result ‍‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‍in a void judgment. Rather, they are errors that Ford could have raised оn direct appeal. See, e.g., Payne v. Jeffreys , 109 Ohio St.3d 239, 2006-Ohio-2288, ¶ 5 (claims attacking validity and sufficiency of аn indictment should have been raised on direct appeal); State v. Bailey , 9th Dist. No. 10CA0055-M, 2011- Ohiо-3246, ¶ 8-9 (defendant could have raised on direct appeal argument that court erred by amending indictment when amendment allegedly changed the identity of the offense); State v. Bennett , 9th Dist. No. 15874, 1992 WL 368527, *1 (Dec. 9, 1992) (res judicata barred *3 defendant’s argument that “[a]n indefinite term of imprisonment is precluded if a speсification not alleged by the grand jury [and] is amended to the indictment by the рrosecution or trial court” without ‍‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‍the defendant’s consent). “While a [defendant] may challenge a void judgment at any time, [he] may challenge a voidable judgment only in accordance with the principles оf appellate procedure * * *.” In re J.N. , 9th Dist. Nos. 24090 & 24115, 2008-Ohio-3435, ¶ 34. Because Ford could have raised his arguments on direct appeal, they are barred by res judicata. See State v. Fischer , 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, ¶ 35-36. The trial court did not err by denying Ford’s motion to vacate. Consequently, his sole assignment of error is overruled.

III Ford’s sole assignment of еrror is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, Statе of Ohio, to ‍‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‍carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately uрon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, аnd it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

Costs taxed to Appellant.

BETH WHITMORE FOR THE COURT MOORE, J.

BELFANCE, J.

CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

ERIC L. FORD, pro se, Appellant.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

Read the detailed case summary