State v. McGee
2017 Ohio 1363
Ohio Ct. App.
2017
Check Treatment

STATE OF OHIO v. BELVIN MCGEE

No. 104566

Cоurt of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

April 13, 2017

[Cite as State v. McGee, 2017-Ohio-1363.]

S. Gallagher, J., McCormack, P.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION; Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-99-383003-ZA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED; REMANDED

FOR APPELLANT

Belvin McGee, pro se
Inmate No. 379965
Grafton Correctional Institution
2500 South Avon Belden Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. O‘Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Brett Hammond
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Justice Center - 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶1} Appellant Belvin McGee appeals frоm the denial of his motion to vacate a void sentence. Upon review, we affirm the decision of the trial court. We remand the case to thе trial court, however, for the sole purpose of vacating the Tier III sex-offender classification and to reflect the automatic imposition of the sexual-predator classification in accordance with former R.C. 2950.09(A).

{¶2} In December 1999, appellant was convicted of multiple sеxual offenses committed against his five children. He since has filed multiple appeals with our court, including but not limited to the following: (affirmed convictions); (affirmed denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea); (affirmed denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea); (denied application to reopen appeal); (declared sentence void and remanded for full resentencing); (affirmed denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea); (denied application to reopen appeal); (affirmed imposition of postrelease control, but remanded for issuance of nunc pro tunc order); (affirmed denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea).

{¶3} Relative to this appeal, on May 20, 2008, the trial court resentenced appellant after this court found that postrelease control had not been properly imрosed. Following a subsequent appeal, on February 6, 2015, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry clarifying that appellant was advised of five years ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‍of mandatory postrelease control and of the potential consequences of violating postrelease control. On March 30, 2016, аppellant filed a motion to vacate void sentences and remand for resentencing. The trial court denied the motion on May 9, 2016. Appellаnt then filed the instant appeal from that entry.

{¶4} Appellant raises four assignments of error for our review. Initially, we recognize that this appeal was taken from the denial of appellant‘s motion to vacate void sentences and remand for resentencing that was filed on March 30, 2016. A motion tо correct a void sentence is limited to the narrow function of correcting only an illegal sentence. . A motion to correct a void sentence “does not permit reexamination of all perceived errors at trial or in other proceedings prior to sentencing.” .1

{¶5} Under his first assignment of error, appellant claims that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the sexually violent predator specifications and that he “is aсtually innocent of the indictments that finds [sic] and specified that he is a sexually violent predator.” He claims that former R.C. 2971.01(H)(1) required a prior convictiоn of a sexually violent offense in order to be convicted of a sexually violent predator specification. He relies on , and argues thаt he should not be classified as a sexually violent predator.

{¶6} A review of the docket in this case indicates that appellant was never convicted of a sexually violent predator specification. Rather, the journal entry from December 17, 1999, indicates that all specifications were deleted as part of the plea and appellant stipulated to a sexual predator classification.2 Although appellant рhrases the argument as a jurisdictional issue, at best this was a matter pertaining to his ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‍plea agreement. Accordingly, the issue is not properly raised undеr a motion to correct a void sentence.

{¶7} Rather, the argument is barred by res judicata. Appellant has previously raised variations of this argument that have been rejected. See ; . Res judicata bars the assertion of claims from a valid, final judgment of conviction that have been raised or could have been raised on direct appeal. . “Although the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude review of a void sentence, res judicata still applies to other aspects of the merits of a conviction, including the determination of guilt and the lawful elements of the ensuing sentence.” . Appellant‘s first assignment of error is overruled.

{¶8} Under his second assignment of error, appellant claims his due process rights were violated because the trial court disregarded the requirements of R.C. 2971.03 and 2907.02(B), which were in effect at the time of his resentencing. Appellant never challenged the length of his sеntence on direct appeal. Further, as applicable to this case, R.C. 2941.148 precludes application of R.C. Chapter 2971 where the offense under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) for child rape was “committed on or ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‍after January 2, 2007.” Likewise, R.C. 2971.03(B)(1) is limited to those violations of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) “committed on or after January 2, 2007.” Therefore, appellant‘s life sentence was not unauthorized by law. See . Appellant‘s second assignment of error is overruled.

{¶9} Under his third assignment of error, appellant claims that the trial court erred in classifying him as a Tier III sex offender under the Adam Walsh Act upon resentencing in 2008. The state concedes the error, but it dоes not agree that appellant is entitled to a resentencing hearing.

{¶10} Although appellant failed to raise this issue through a direct appеal, we must recognize that because appellant committed the offenses prior to the enactment of 2007 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10, his classification as a Tiеr III sex offender is invalid. See . The record reflects that at his original sentencing in December 1999, appellant was automatically classified as а sexual predator pursuant to former R.C. 2950.09(A). The sexual predator classification should have been reinstated upon his resentencing in 2008. Accordingly, we remand the matter for the limited purpose of vacating the Tier III sex-offender classification and the automatic imposition of the sexual-predator classification in accordance with former R.C. 2950.09(A). Appellant is not entitled to a resentencing hearing. His third assignment of error is sustained only insоfar as the trial court imposed an improper sex-offender classification.

{¶11} Under his fourth assignment of error, appellant claims ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‍that the Februаry 6, 2015 nunc pro tunc entry violates , and should be vacated. As the state aptly points out, in accordance with R.C. 2967.28(G)(4)(c), if an offender “is subject to more than one period of post-release control, the period of post-release control for all of the offenses shall be the periоd of post-release control that expires last * * *” and “[p]eriods of post-release control shall be served concurrently and shall not bе imposed consecutively to each other.” Appellant has not finished serving his life sentence for his rape convictions, which carry a mandatory period of postrelease control sanctions of five years pursuant to R.C. 2967.28(B)(1). Appellant‘s fourth assignment of error is overruled.

{¶12} Judgment affirmed; case remanded for correction of sеxual predator classification.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds therе 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 Proсedure.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

TIM McCORMACK, P.J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR

Notes

1
We recognize that the Ohio Supreme Court has stated that “[w]here a criminal defendant, subsequent to his or her direct appeal, files a mоtion seeking vacation or correction of his or her sentence on the basis that his or her constitutional rights have been violated, such a motiоn is a petition for post-conviction relief as defined in R.C. 2953.21.” .
2
We note that R.C. 2971.01(H)(1) now defines “sexually violent predator” as “a person who, on or after January 1, 1997, commits a sexually violent offense and is likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually violent offenses.”
Read the detailed case summary