Case Information
*1
[Cite as ,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
CASE NO. CA2014-01-014 Plaintiff-Appellee, :
O P I N I O N : 6/30/2014 - vs -
:
ROBERT A. SNEAD, :
Defendant-Appellant. : CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2001CR00010
D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Judith Brant and Nicholas Horton, 76 South Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee Robert A. Snead, A425370, Madison Correctional Institution, P.O. Bоx 740, London, Ohio 43140-0740, defendant-appellant, pro se
S. POWELL, J. Defendant-appellant, Robert Snead, appeals from the decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition for postconviction relief. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm. On February 25, 2002, Snead pled guilty in Clermont County Common Pleas
Court to a number of offenses, specifically:
Ct.#1: Aggravated Burglary with a three year gun specification, in violation of Section 2911.11(A)(1) of the Ohio Revised Code, a felony of thе first degree; Ct.#4: Kidnapping with sexual motivation specification in violation of Section 2905.01(A)(2), a felony of the first degree; Ct.#5: Kidnapping in violation of Section 2905.01(A)(2), a felony of the first degree; Cts.#10 and #11: Assault in violation of Sectiоn 2903.13, misdemeanors of the first degree and Ct.#12: Felonious Assault on a Police Officer in violation of Section 2903.11(A)(2), a felony of the first degree.
State v. Snead , Clermont C.P. 01-CR-00010 (Feb. 27, 2002) ( Snead I ). On March 11, 2002, the trial court entered a judgment entry of sentence. That entry set out the charges upon which Snead was found guilty and imposed a 21-year sentence of imprisonment. Snead did not file a direct appeal. On January 15, 2008, Snead moved to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming, intеr
alia, he was denied effective assistance of counsel and his sentence was improper. On March 11, 2008, the trial court denied Snead's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This court affirmed the trial court's decision in an entry dated October 14, 2008. State v. Snead , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2008-04-036 (Oct. 4, 2008) (Accelerated Calendar Judgment Entry) ( Snead II On December 28, 2009, Snead filed a petition for postconviction relief. Among
other things, Snead argued: (1) his conviction and sentenсe was contrary to law; (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (3) his convictions were allied offenses of similar import; and (4) his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court denied Snead's motion in an entry filed January 26, 2010. State v. Snead , Clermont C.P. No. 2001-CR-00010 (Jan. 26, 2010) (Judgment Entry Overruling Motion For Postconviction Relief) ( Snead III ). Snead did not appeal the decision of the trial court. On June 18, 2010, Snead moved for leave to file a delayed appeal from the judgment entry entered on March 11, 2002. This court denied Snead's motion in an entry dated August 20, 2010. , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2010-06-045 (Aug. 20, 2010) (Entry Denying Motion For Delayed Appeal) ( Snead IV ). Also on June 18, 2010, Snead filed a sеcond petition for postconviction relief.
On July 20, 2010, the trial court denied Snead's petition. This court dismissed Snead's appeal on the basis of untimeliness in an entry dated September 15, 2010. , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2010-08-062 (Sept. 15, 2010) (Judgment Entry of Dismissal) ( Sneаd V ). On March 1, 2011, Snead filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal
court alleging 16 grounds for relief. On September 4, 2012, the district court dismissed
Snead's petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 with prejudice on the ground that the petition
was time-barred under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d). Snead v. Warden, Madison Correctional Inst .,
S.D.Ohio No. 1:11-CV-127,
against Judge Ferenc in the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas. On April 18, 2013,
the trial court issuеd a nunc pro tunc judgment entry of sentence correcting the 2002
judgment entry by stating that Snead was convicted of certain crimes "pursuant to his pleas
of guilty entered February 25, 2002." Snead then filed an amended petition with this court on
June 7, 2012, raising 17 assignments of error. On November 4, 2013, this court dismissed
the petition on the grounds that the nunc pro tunc entry rendered the mandamus claim moot
and that relief in prohibition was unavailable because Snead had an adequate remedy by
way of appeal to dispute the propriety of the nunc pro tunc entry. The Ohio Supreme Court
affirmed this court's decision in a per curiam opinion. State ex rel. Snead v. Ferenc , 138
Ohio St.3d 136,
motion to withdraw a guilty plea; (2) defendant's motion requesting appointment of an expert witness; (3) defendant's request for copies of documents; (4) defendаnt's motion to correct a void sentence. The trial court found it lacked jurisdiction to consider Snead's motion to correct a void sentence because of the pending appeal in Snead VII . The triаl court therefore stayed its decision on that motion pending the outcome of Snead's appeal. The trial court denied Snead's remaining motions on the basis of res judicata. This court affirmed that decision on November 12, 2013. State v. Snead , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2013-07-058 (Nov. 12, 2013) (Accelerated Calendar Judgment Entry) ( Snead VIII
{¶ 10} On January 14, 2014, following the resolution of the appeal in Snead VI , the trial court denied appellant's "Motion to Correct a Vоid Sentence." , Clermont C.P. No. 2001-CR-00010 (Jan. 14, 2014) (Decision and Entry). Appellant now appeals from this decision, raising two assignments of error for review. Assignment of Error No. 1: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TO THE
PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT WHEN IT FAILED TO DECLARE THE PROCEEDINGS, CONVICTION, JUDGMENT, SENTENCE AND SANCTIONS OF THE FEBRUARY 25TH, 2002, PLEA HEARING AND MARCH 4TH SENTENCING HEARING, OF THE APPELLANT, AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AND IMPROPERLY APPLIED THE DOCTRINES OF RES JUDICATA AND THE LAW OF THE CASE IN VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS. Assignment of Error No. 2: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TO THE
PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT WHEN IT RELIED UPON TWELFTH DISTRICT DECISIONS TO CONTRADICT CONTROLLING SUPREME COURT OF OHIO PRECEDENTS IN ITS DETERMINATION THAT PROPER NOTIFICATION WAS GIVEN FOR POST RELEASE CONTROL IN VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINES OF STARE DECISIS, RES JUDICATA AND THE LAW OF THE CASE.
We will address Snead's assignments of error together. In his first assignment
of error, Snead argues the trial court erred by sentencing him to a 21-year prison term and
classifying him as a sexual predator following his 2002 convictions. In his second
assignment of error, Snead alleges the trial court failеd to give a proper notification of
postrelease control. Therefore, Snead argues that his conviction and sentence must be
reversed because "the Court failed to comply with mandatory statutes under the Ohio
Revised Code in violation of the Due Process Clauses of the Ohio and United States
Constitutions, Ohio Supreme Court decisions and Stare Decisis." We disagree.
A postconviction proceeding is not an appeal of a criminal conviction, but
rather, a collateral civil attack on a criminal judgment. State v. Dillingham , 12th Dist. Butler
Nos. CA2012-02-037, CA2012-02-042,
previously raised identical arguments in prior court filings claiming his sentence is contrary to law and therefore those arguments are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
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 the trial, which resulted in that judgment оf conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment.
State v. Blankenburg , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-04-088,
evidence regarding his sentence. Snead's arguments have been litigated. Accordingly,
Snead's arguments regarding his sentence are without merit based on the doctrine of res
judicata. See State v. Bailey , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2003-03-066,
law. Snead's aggregate sentence is clearly within the permissible statutory range for the
offenses in effect at the time of the commission of the offenses and the sentence was
imposed in accordance with law. See former R.C. 2929.14. In addition, Snead's argument
that he was improperly classified as a sexual predator is barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. See, e.g., State v. Westerfield , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-286,
res judicata.
[1]
See Poissant ,
PIPER, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
1. We also note that Snead never filed a transcript of the sentencing hearing, which was necessary tо support
his allegations that he was never "orally notified" of the postrelease control provisions at the sentencing hearing.
As this court has repeatedly acknowledged, because "an appealing party bears the burden of showing error in
the underlying proceeding by reference to matters in the record, the appellant has a duty to provide a transcript
for appellate review." State v. Williams , 12th Dist. Clеrmont No. CA2012-Ohio-08-060,