STATE OF OHIO v. OCIE REDDICK
No. 108747
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, County of Cuyahoga
March 12, 2020
2020-Ohio-925
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-85-197183-ZA
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 12, 2020
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Anthony Thomas Miranda, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Ocie Reddick, pro se.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Ocie Reddick (“appellant“), brings the instant appeal challenging the trial court‘s judgment denying his motion to vacate void sentence. Appellant argues that the trial court‘s sentences on his aggravated murder
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶ 2} In 1985, after a jury trial, appellant was convicted of aggravated murder, in violation of
DEFT SENT TO LIFE IMPRIS C.C.I.W/NO PAROLE ELIGIBILITY [UNTIL] 20 FULL YEARS ARE SERVED. DEFT SENT 3 YRS ON THE GUN SPEC TO RUN CONSECUTIVE W/THE LIFE SENT. DEFT SENT 10-25 YRS ON THE ATT MURDER CONVICTION IN COUNT #2. THE SENT ON THE GUN SPEC IN COUNT NO. 2, AS IT MERGES W/THE GUN SPEC IN COUNT #1. ALL TIME TO RUN CONSECUTIVE.
{¶ 4} On August 31, 1999, appellant filed a “motion to correct illegal sentence.” The following day, appellant filed a “motion to correct sentence.” The trial court denied appellant‘s motion to correct illegal sentence on August 31, 2005.
{¶ 5} Appellant filed an appeal challenging the trial court‘s judgment denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. State v. Reddick, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87086, 2006-Ohio-3687 (”Reddick II“). On appeal, appellant argued that “the trial court did not comply with the terms of
{¶ 6} This court affirmed the trial court‘s denial of appellant‘s motion and noted that
[A]ppellant failed to comply with the deadline set forth in
R.C. 2953.21 and did not provide an adequate excuse for noncompliance, as outlined inR.C. 2953.23 . He filed his direct appeal on September 27, 1985; however, his motion to correct an illegal sentence was not filed until August 31, 1999, almost 14 years later. It is clear that appellant‘s deadline of 180 days expired well before he filed his petition for post conviction relief; thus, he failed to comply with the deadline set forth inR.C. 2953.21 when filing his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Asa result of his noncompliance, the trial court was barred from granting his motion.
{¶ 7} On September 9, 2008, appellant filed a motion to correct void sentence pursuant to
{¶ 8} On May 21, 2019, appellant filed a “motion to vacate void sentence as it is contrary to law.” Therein, he argued that the sentences imposed on both the aggravated murder and attempted murder counts were void and contrary to law. On June 11, 2019, the trial court denied appellant‘s motion. It is from this judgment that appellant filed the instant appeal on July 1, 2019.
{¶ 9} Appellant assigns two errors for review:
- [The] [t]rial court abused its discretion when it denied [appellant‘s] motion to vacate void sentence as it is contrary to law.
- The trial court abused its discretion when it denied [appellant‘s] motion to vacate void sentence as it is contrary to law without holding an evidentiary hearing.
A. Motion to Vacate Sentence
{¶ 10} In appellant‘s first assignment of error, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his “motion to vacate void sentence.” Appellant contends that his sentence is void because the trial court exceeded its sentencing authority.
1. Attempted Murder
{¶ 11} As an initial matter, the state concedes that the trial court‘s sentence on the attempted murder count is void. As such, the state asserts that the sentence on this count should be vacated, and the matter remanded for resentencing.
{¶ 12} After reviewing the record, we find that appellant‘s sentence of 10 to 25 years, with 10 years of actual imprisonment, is contrary to law.
{¶ 13} Appellant was sentenced in August 1985. At the time,
{¶ 14} Appellant‘s first assignment of error is sustained with respect to his sentence for attempted murder.
{¶ 15} Appellant also contends that his sentence for aggravated murder is contrary to law. We disagree.
{¶ 16}
{¶ 17} Appellant does not challenge the evidentiary basis supporting his sentence. Rather, he argues that the trial court‘s sentence on the aggravated murder count is void because the sentence is not authorized under
{¶ 18} A trial court has no authority to impose sentences that are void as a matter of law. State v. Lee, 2018-Ohio-1839, 112 N.E.3d 65, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403, 2016-Ohio-7658, 71 N.E.3d 234, ¶ 28. Notwithstanding the limitations under
“‘No court has the authority to impose a sentence that is contrary to law,’ when the trial court disregards statutory mandates, ‘[p]rinciples of res judicata, including the doctrine of the law of the case, do not preclude appellate review. The sentence may be reviewed at any time, on direct appeal or by collateral attack.‘”
[Williams] at ¶ 22, quoting
{¶ 19} At the time of the August 1985 sentencing hearing,
{¶ 20} In support of his argument that his sentence for aggravated murder is void, appellant directs our attention to this court‘s holding in Smith, 2019-Ohio-155, 131 N.E.3d 321. Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to follow Smith.
{¶ 21} In 1988, Smith entered into a plea agreement with the state and pled guilty to aggravated murder. The trial court imposed a sentence on Smith of 20 years to life in prison. In 2018, Smith filed a motion to void his sentence. The trial court denied his motion. On appeal, Smith argued that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it sentenced him to a prison term that was contrary to law. Specifically, Smith argued “that his prison term is contrary to law because a sentence of ‘twenty (20) years to life’ is not an authorized sentence for aggravated murder.” Id. at ¶ 18. This court noted that
{¶ 22} In the instant case, appellant appears to argue that the trial court‘s sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility until 20 full years are served is akin to the trial court‘s sentence in Smith of 20 years to life. Appellant‘s argument is misplaced and unsupported by the record.
{¶ 23} The record reflects that the trial court imposed a definite prison term of life imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving 20 years. The trial court‘s sentencing journal entry provides, in relevant part, “DEFT SENT TO LIFE IMPRIS C.C.I.W/NO PAROLE ELIGIBILITY [UNTIL] 20 FULL YEARS ARE SERVED.” Unlike Smith, 2019-Ohio-155, 131 N.E.3d 321, the trial court did not impose an indefinite prison term of 20 years to life.
{¶ 24} For all of the foregoing reasons, appellant‘s reliance on Smith is misplaced. The trial court did not exceed its sentencing authority in sentencing appellant on the aggravated murder count. Therefore, the sentence on Count 1 is not contrary to law.
{¶ 25} Appellant‘s first assignment of error is overruled with respect to the sentence for aggravated murder.
B. Evidentiary Hearing
{¶ 26} Based on our resolution of appellant‘s first assignment of error, appellant‘s second assignment of error, challenging the trial court‘s failure to hold a
{¶ 27} The trial court‘s judgment with respect to the aggravated murder sentence is affirmed. Appellant‘s sentence on the attempted murder count is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing on the attempted murder count only.
It is ordered that appellant and appellee share the 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
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE