STATE OF OHIO v. BRANDON C. PATTERSON
Case No. 2014CA00220
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
May 4, 2015
[Cite as State v. Patterson, 2015-Ohio-1714.]
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J., Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J., Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2009CR0136. Affirmed and Remanded.
JUDGMENT: Affirmed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 4, 2015
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee
JOHN D. FERRERO, Prosecutor
By: RENEE M. WATSON
110 Central Plaza South
Suite 510
Canton, OH 44702-1413
For Defendant-Appellant
BRANDON C. PATTERSON, Pro Se
Inmate No. A564-655
Trumbull Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 901
Leavittsburg, OH 44430
{¶1} On March 11, 2009, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Brandon Patterson, on one count of attempted murder in violation of
{¶2} A jury trial commenced on April 29, 2009. The jury found appellant guilty as charged. By judgment entry filed May 19, 2009, the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of twenty years in prison. Appellant filed an appeal. This court affirmed appellant‘s convictions. State v. Patterson, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2009CA00142, 2010-Ohio-2988.
{¶3} On October 29, 2014, appellant filed a motion to correct sentence and termination order, claiming the sentencing entry did not indicate the order in which the sentences were to be served and the trial court failed to impose a sanction for each offense. By judgment entry filed November 5, 2014, the trial court denied the motion.
{¶4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶5} “TRIAL COURT VIOLATED DEFENDANTS RIGHT TO U.S. AMEND. 5TH, 6TH, & 14TH, & OH. CONST. ART. 1, § 10, & 16, WHEN IT FAILED TO CORRECT THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORY MANDATED SANCTIONS & THE IMPROPER “SENTENCING PACKAGE” CONSTRUCTION OF JOURNAL ENTRY.”
{¶6} “TRIAL COURT VIOLATED DEFENDANTS RIGHT TO U.S. AMEND. 5TH, 6TH, & 14TH, & OH. CONST. ART. 1, § 10, & 16, WHEN IT FAILED TO CORRECT THE AMBIGUOUS JOURNAL ENTRY.”
{¶7} Preliminarily, we note this case comes to us on the accelerated calendar. App.R. 11.1, which governs accelerated calendar cases, provides in pertinent part the following:
(E) Determination and judgment on appeal
The appeal will be determined as provided by App. R. 11.1. It shall be sufficient compliance with App. R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason for the court‘s decision as to each error to be in brief and conclusionary form.
The decision may be by judgment entry in which case it will not be published in any form.
{¶8} One of the important purposes of the accelerated calendar is to enable an appellate court to render a brief and conclusory decision more quickly than in a case on the regular calendar where the briefs, facts, and legal issues are more complicated. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Association, 11 Ohio App.3d 158 (10th Dist.1983).
{¶9} This appeal shall be considered in accordance with the aforementioned rules.
{¶10} Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to correct sentence and termination order because his sentencing entry did not include “offense specific” penalties and did not indicate the order in which his multiple-count sentences were to be served. We disagree.
{¶11} “Where a criminal defendant, subsequent to his or her direct appeal, files a motion seeking vacation or correction of his or her sentence on the basis that his or her constitutional rights have been violated, such a motion is a petition for postconviction relief as defined in
Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment.
{¶12} Appellant could have raised the aforementioned issues on direct appeal, but did not do so.
{¶14} Nevertheless, in reviewing the trial court‘s sentence, both on the record and in the May 19, 2009 judgment entry, we find the trial court set forth specific penalties for each offense. May 6, 2009 T. at 6-7. The attempted murder count and the felonious assault count, both involving the same victim, as well as the accompanying firearm specifications, were merged, with appellant receiving ten years in prison on the attempted murder count and three years on the firearm specification. The trial court specifically stated the ten year term was to be served subsequent to the three year firearm sentence. The trial court also sentenced appellant to three years in prison on the second felonious assault count involving another victim, as well as three years on the accompanying firearm specification. The trial court specifically stated the three year term was to be served subsequent to the three year firearm sentence. Lastly, the trial court sentenced appellant to one year on the weapons count, and ordered all of the sentences to be served consecutively for a total aggregate sentence of twenty years in prison.
{¶15} We find the trial court properly imposed specific sentences on each offense under
{¶16} During the May 6, 2009 sentencing hearing at 7, the trial court informed appellant that he was subject to “supervision by the parole authority” and said
{¶17} Appellant argues the trial court did not set forth the sequence in which the consecutive sentences are to be served in relation to his argument (newly raised in his appellate brief) that the trial court improperly imposed post-release control. Appellant argues the trial court cannot now re-impose post-release control because he has already served six years and it is “unclear which sanction is completed already and to which sanction PRC will attach.” Appellant‘s Brief at 8.
{¶18} Appellant has not completed his prison term; therefore, a proper term of post-release control can be imposed. State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197. As to “which sanction PRC will attach,”
{¶19} Furthermore, the six years appellant has served relates to the two three year sentences he received for the firearm specifications.
{¶21} The sole assignment of error is denied.
{¶22} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio is hereby affirmed, but the matter is remanded to said court for the proper imposition of post-release control.
By Farmer, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
SGF/sg 413