State v. GreenbergState v. Greenberg
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael P. Walton, for appellee.
Steven M. Greenberg, pro se.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
SADLER, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellаnt, Steven M. Greenberg, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his
I. BACKGROUND
{¶ 2} On October 14, 2003, appellant pleaded guilty to one count of rape, a felony of the first degree, in violation of
{¶ 3} Appellant subsequently filed a motion for judicial release, pursuant to
{¶ 4} The probation department filed a request for revocation of community control on November 30, 2010, on grounds that (1) appеllant possessed pornography through his personal email account, (2) appellant was involved with selling and purchasing sexually explicit material through the internet, (3) appellant failed to inform the probation department of intimate relationships conducted through dating websites, and (4) appellant had personal internet use that was verified thrоugh his Facebook and personal email account.
{¶ 5} The trial court held a community control revocation hearing on January 26, 2011. Appellant attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. The trial court acknowledged the internet restrictions it previously imposed on appellant and said that the restrictions “were agreed upоn by the defendant and by his attorney.” (Jan. 26, 2011 Revocation Hearing, 5.) Although appellant denied viewing pornography in his email account or trafficking in sexually explicit material through the internet, he stipulated that he violated the conditions of his community control by engaging in personal internet use and did not object to the added conditions. The trial court revokеd appellant‘s community control and reinstated his prison sentence. The trial court journalized its decision in an entry dated February 4, 2011.
{¶ 6} Appellant did not appeal the trial court‘s decision to revoke his community control. On July 25, 2011, after the time to file an appeal expired, appellant moved for the trial court to reconsider its revocаtion order and suspend the execution of his prison sentence. The trial court denied appellant‘s motion. On January 6, 2012, pursuant to
{¶ 7} The trial court denied appellant‘s motion. It concluded that appellant was not entitled to relief because he improperly used
II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶ 8} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and assigns the following as error:
I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to give fair notice requirements.
II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in violating Appellant‘s due proсess rights.
III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in applying the doctrine of res judicata.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Third Assignment of Error
{¶ 9} For ease of discussion and because it is dispositive, we begin by addressing appellant‘s third assignment of error, in which he claims that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his
{¶ 10} ”
{¶ 11} The trial court concluded that appellant‘s
{¶ 12} Appellant contends that res judicata does not apply to his
{¶ 13} Apрellant also argues that res judicata is inapplicable because his reinstated prison sentence is void. Res judicata does not apply to a defendant‘s challenge to a void sentence. State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, ¶ 40. A void sentence is imposed by a court that lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a case. Id. at ¶ 6-7. A sentence that is not in accordance with statutоrily mandated terms is also void. Id. at ¶ 8. Appellant does not claim that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his case, nor does he specify a statutorily mandated term disregarded by the trial court. He instead claims that his prison sentence was erroneously reinstated because his community control should not have been revoked. In State v. Webb, 3d Dist. No. 9-08-58, 2009-Ohio-3412, ¶ 14, the court applied res judicata to a defendant‘s collateral attack claiming error in a trial court‘s decision to revoke his community
{¶ 14} Having concluded that the exceptions to res judicata raised by appellant do not apply here, we now determine whether the trial court abused its discretiоn by holding that res judicata barred appellant‘s motion. In Dodson, this court recognized that res judicata bars a defendant‘s
{¶ 15} Appellant contends in his
B. First and Second Assignments of Error
{¶ 16} In his first and second assignments of error, appellant argues that the trial court abused its disсretion and violated his due process rights by imposing the internet restrictions outside his presence. These arguments were the basis for appellant‘s
IV. CONCLUSION
{¶ 17} Having overruled appellant‘s third assignment of error and rendered appellant‘s first and second assignments of error moot, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
KLATT, P.J., and DORRIAN, J., concur.
_____________________________