STATE OF OHIO v. TREMAIN E. MARTIN
No. 110576
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
December 2, 2021
2021-Ohio-4213
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-10-532936-A
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 2, 2021
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attоrney, and Mary M. Frey, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Tremain E. Martin, pro se.
LISA B. FORBES, J.:
{¶ 1} Appellant Tremain E. Martin (“Martin“) appeals the trial court‘s order denying his motion to vacate court costs. After review of the law and pertinent facts of the case, we affirm.
{¶ 2} In 2010, Martin pleаd guilty to failure to comply with order or signal of a police officer, a felony of the fourth degree in violatiоn of
{¶ 3} Martin appealed his conviction, and this court affirmed the trial court‘s judgment. See State v. Martin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 095281, 2011-Ohio-222.
{¶ 4} On May 8, 2018, Martin moved the trial court to vacate the order requiring him to pay court costs. At that time, he argued that the trial court was required to hold a hearing pursuant to
{¶ 5} Martin again sought to vacate the trial court‘s order requiring him to pay court costs, filing a writ of mandamus with this court on February 21, 2019. See State ex rel. Martin v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108231, 2019-Ohio-2242, ¶ 4, aff‘d, 160 Ohio St.3d 21, 2020-Ohio-829, 153 N.E.3d 20, reconsideration denied, 158 Ohio St.3d 1507, 2020-Ohio-2819, 144 N.E.3d 457. Martin‘s writ was dismissed because he had “no clear right to the requested relief.” State ex rel. Martin at ¶ 8. The Supreme Court оf Ohio affirmed this court‘s dismissal.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 7} Martin raises one assignment of error, claiming, “It was plain, reversible error for the trial court to fail to void and vacate the unlawful revival of a dormant judgment.” Martin argues that the trial court was without jurisdiction to collect court costs from him because the judgment went “dormant” once he completed the prison term portion of his sentence. Further, he argues that because he finished his prison term prior to paying his court costs, “he only faced community service as a means to satisfy outstanding court costs.” Becausе Martin‘s arguments are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, his sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 8} Under the doctrine оf res judicata, “[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject to the previous action.” Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 382, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995). Res judicata “prevents repeated attacks on a final judgment and applies to issues that were or might have been previously litigated.” State v. Sneed, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84964, 2005-Ohio-1865, ¶ 16, citing State v. Brown, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84322, 2004-Ohio-6421, ¶ 7. “[P]rinciples of res judicata prevent relief on successive, similar motions raising issues which were or could have bеen raised
{¶ 9} Under
{¶ 10} While
{¶ 12} According to Martin‘s 2020 motion, because he completed serving his prison sentence in 2011, the court‘s order requiring him to pay court costs went dormant in 2016. Martin could and should have raised this issue previously when he sought to vacate court costs in 2018. Martin is barred by res judicata from raising that argument or any other argument seeking to relieve him of his obligation to pay court costs.
{¶ 13} Though Martin‘s entire motion is barrеd by res judicata, we respond to Martin‘s argument that the court was limited to ordering community service, reiterating that Martin rеlies on caselaw and statutory authority that is inapplicable. We decline to stray from the guidance providеd to Martin in Martin v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108231, 2019-Ohio-2242, at ¶ 10-12. In that prior appeal, this court previously explained that State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106138, 2018-Ohio-496, is inapplicable to Martin‘s claims seeking to vacate court costs because he “has not been ordered to perform community work service.” The court made clear in Johnson, that ”
{¶ 14} Accordingly, Martin‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 15} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that аppellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, A.J., and
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR