State v. FoyState v. Foy
For Plaintiff-Appellee
JOHN D. FERRERO, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY,
By: RONALD MARK CALDWELL Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Appellate Section 110 Central Plaza, South - Suite 510 Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
For Defendant-Appellant
RAYMOND FOY, PRO SE Inmate No. 520-180 5701 Burnett Road Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430
O P I N I O N
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Raymond Foy appeals the September 8, 2009 Judgment Entry entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his Motion for Re-Sentencing. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
{¶2} On June 30, 2006, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on one count of aggravated robbery, in violation of
{¶3} The matter proceeded to jury trial on August 7, 2006. The jury found Appellant guilty of all three counts contained in the Indictment. After accepting the jury‘s verdicts, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate prison term of fourteen years. Specifically, the trial court imposed an eight year term of imprisonment for the aggravated robbery charge in addition to the mandatory consecutive three year term for the firearm specification; a consecutive three year term for the having weapons
{¶4} On February 10, 2009, Appellant filed a Motion for Re-Sentencing in the trial court, relying on the Ohio Supreme Court‘s decision in State v. Pelfrey (2007), 112 Ohio St.3d 422. The trial court denied Appellant‘s motion via Judgment Entry filed September 8, 2009.
{¶5} It is from that judgment entry Appellant appeals, raising the following assignment of error:
{¶6} “I. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF ERROR RATHER A CASE OF THE DEGREE OF THE OFFENSE OF WHICH DEFENDANT-APPELLANT FOY WAS CONVICTED.”
I
{¶7} Herein, Appellant maintains his sentence is void because the verdict forms in his case were defective as such did not state the levels of the offenses on which he was convicted.
{¶8} While Appellant‘s delayed appeal was pending in this Court, the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Pelfrey, supra. Appellant had the opportunity to raise this issue on direct appeal, but, unlike the defendant in Pelfrey, he failed to do so. The doctrine of res judicata bars Appellant from raising this issue anew via a motion for re-sentencing.
{¶10} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶11} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Edwards, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Julie A. Edwards
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
s/ Patricia A. Delaney
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reason stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to Appellant.
s/ William B. Hoffman
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Julie A. Edwards
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
s/ Patricia A. Delaney
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY