State v. RedwineState v. Redwine
William H. Redwine, Jr., 26 West Columbia Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215, defendant-appellant, pro se
O P I N I O N
RINGLAND, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, William Redwine, appeals his conviction for felonious assault from the Brown County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶2} On June 16, 2006, appellant was found guilty of felonious assault in violation of
{¶3} On December 3, 2009, appellant filed a motion for resentencing to correct a void judgment. The trial court determined that appellant was not informed that he was subject to a mandatory three-year period of postrelease control. The trial court resentenced appellant to four years in prison and granted judicial release on the court‘s own motion. Appellant timely appeals, raising three assignments of error.
{¶4} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶5} “APPELLANT WAS DENIED A FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR TRIAL WHERE THE STATE INTRODUCED CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE OF APPELLANT‘S AGGRESSIVE CONDUCT TOWARD THIRD PARTIES AS PROOF OF APPELLANT‘S PROPENSITY FOR VIOLENCE IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT HE ACTED IN CONFORMITY THEREWITH ON THIS OCCASION.”
{¶6} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶7} “APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE THE STATE‘S WITNESS AGAINST HIM WHERE THE STATE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE THE OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT OF DR. REDDY AS PROOF THAT LINEAR BRUISE FOUND ON THE ALLEGED VICTIM WAS CAUSED BY SOME SORT OF DEADLY WEAPON.”
{¶8} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶9} “APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL WHERE COUNSEL FAILED TO SUBJECTED [sic] THE FOREGOING PREJUDICIAL ERRORS TO ANY MEANINGFUL ADVERSARIAL TESTING.”
{¶10} In the instant appeal, appellant raises three arguments contesting aspects of his original trial. Appellant urges that he may bring the foregoing assignments of error
{¶11} We disagree with appellant‘s analysis of the proceedings and belief that his original sentence was void. Specifically, appellant was sentenced following the enactment of
{¶12} Although appellant was incorrectly instructed regarding postrelease control, his original sentence was not void. See State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434.
{¶13} We recognize that the trial court conducted a full resentencing hearing in this case, which resulted in a reduction of appellant‘s prison term. Rather than fully resentence appellant, the trial court could have simply corrected any omission relating to the terms of postrelease control by conducting a hearing under
{¶14} Accordingly, since the original sentence and conviction were not void, appellant is estopped from raising the instant assignments of error as a second direct appeal. “The doctrine of res judicata encompasses the two related concepts of claim preclusion, also known as res judiciata or estoppel by judgment, and issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel.” State ex rel. Schacter v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 121 Ohio St.3d 526, 2009-Ohio-1704, ¶27. “Claim preclusion prevents subsequent actions, by the same parties or their privies, based upon any claim arising out of a transaction that was the subject matter of a previous action.” Id. “The previous action is conclusive for all claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action.” Id. The foregoing issues raised by appellant could have been pursued in his direct appeal, yet he failed to do so. Accordingly, the assignments of error raised in the instant matter are overruled on the basis of res judicata.
{¶15} Judgment affirmed.
POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.