State v. StegallState v. Stegall
Justin Stegall, #A626978, Southern Ohio Correctionаl Facility, P.O. Box 45699, Lucasville, Ohio 45699, defendant-appellant, pro se
O P I N I O N
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Justin Stegall, appeals pro se from the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion requesting the trial court to cоrrect his allegedly void sentence. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On January 20, 2010, the Butler County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Stegall with five counts of aggravated robbery, all first-degree felonies that included
{¶ 3} On March 17, 2010, after entering into a plea agreement, Stegall pled guilty to one count of aggravated robbery in violation of
{¶ 4} On January 24, 2011, this court dismissed Stegall‘s direct appeal in State v. Stegall, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2010-03-070, 2011-Ohio-262, finding it wholly frivolous after his appellate counsel filed an appellate brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967). The Ohio Supreme Court subsequently denied Stegall‘s motion for a delayed appeal in State v. Stegall, 137 Ohio St.3d 1472, 2014-Ohio-176. This court then denied Stegall‘s untimely application to reoрen his appeal in State v. Stegall, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2010-03-070 (Feb. 4, 2014) (Entry Denying Application for Reopening).
{¶ 5} After the trial court twice denied Stegall‘s motions to withdraw his guilty plea, Stegall filed a motion on January 30, 2014 requesting the trial court to correct his allegedly void sentence. As part of this motion, Stegall argued his sentence was void because the trial
{¶ 6} Approximately one year later, on January 15, 2015, the trial court issued its decision denying Stegall‘s motion to correct his allegedly void sentence. In so holding, the trial court stated:
The matter before the Court is defendant‘s motion to “correct void sentence.” No copy of the defendant‘s motion was provided to this Court by defendant so the Court was unaware of the motion. After careful consideration, the original judgment of conviction entry filed by this Court is cоrrect and reflects the sentence of this Court. Therefore, the motion of the defendant is overruled.
Stegall now appeals from the trial court‘s decision denying his motion, raising one assignment of error for review.
{¶ 7} APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS UPON TRIAL COURT‘S ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO CORRECT A VOID SENTENCE.
{¶ 8} In his single assignment of еrror, Stegall argues the trial court erred by denying his motion requesting the trial court to correct his allegedly void sentence. We disagree.
{¶ 9} As relevant here, pursuant to former
{¶ 10} As noted above, Stegall was charged with the failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer in violation of
{¶ 11} As the record reflects, Stegall pled guilty to a violation of
{¶ 12} To that end, it is undisputed that the trial court properly sentenced Stegall in accordance with former
As to count nine, the Court will impose ten years in prison plus pay the cost of prosecution. Count twelve, ten years in the Ohio Department of Corrections plus play the cost of prosecution. As to count fourteen, which is the receiving stolen property, the
Court will also impose an 18-month sentence plus pay the cost of prosecution. Counts nine, twelve, and fourteen will run concurrently with each other. As to the gun specification, the Court will impose a consecutive three-year sentence plus pay the cost of prosecution. And as to the failure to comply with the signal of a police officer, the Court will impose an additional two year consecutive prison term, again, because that has to be served consecutive by law, so the record is clear, it is the intention of the Court to impost a fifteen-year prison term. I think it‘s reflected by that.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 13} Nevertheless, Stegall claims his sentence is void becausе the trial court‘s sentencing entry only ordered his two-year prison sentence for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer (Count 15) to be served consecutively to his aggravated robbery charge (Cоunt 9), without also specifically ordering that sentence to be served consecutively to his sentences for aggravated robbery (Count 12) and receiving stolen property (Count 14).
{¶ 14} However, just as the trial court stated at the sentencing hearing, the trial court‘s sentencing entry indicates the sentences imposed for aggravated robbery (Count 12) and receiving stolen property (Count 14) were ordered to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for aggravated robbery with a firearm specification (Count 9). In turn, contrary to Stegall‘s claim, we find the trial court‘s sentencing entry properly ordered Stegall‘s two-year prison sentence for his failure to comply with an order or signal оf a police officer (Count 15) to run consecutively to any other prison term imposed upon him. To hold otherwise would be improper considering the concurrent nature of the sentences imposed for his aggravated robbery and receiving stolen property convictions. Therefore, based on the record here, we find no error in the trial court‘s decision to deny Stegall‘s motion to correct his allegedly void sentence.
{¶ 15} In so holding, we note that even if we were to find merit with Stegall‘s claim that his sentence was somehow void due to an error within the trial court‘s sentencing entry,
Ohio courts have rejected the assertion that corrеcting a statutorily deficient sentence on remand violates the constitutional protections against double jeopardy. “Any attempt by a court to disregard statutory requirements when imposing a sentence renders the attempted sentence a nullity or void.” State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74, 75 (1984). “Because jeopardy does not attach to a void sentence, the subsequent imposition of the statutorily required sentence cannot constitute double jeopardy.” State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200, 2009-Ohio-2462, ¶ 27. In this case, the trial court was statutorily required to impose a consecutive sentence for appellee‘s conviction for failure to comply but failed to do so. Therefore, appellee‘s original sentence was void. Jeopardy did not attach to the void sentence, and an order from the trial court correcting the sentence would not constitute double jeopardy. See, e.g., State v. Jackson, 10th Dist. No. 06AP631, 2007-Ohio-1474, ¶ 16 (defendant was not subjected to double jeopardy when trial court re-sentenced him and imposed a statutorily required three-year period of post-release control); State v. Aylward, 11th Dist. No. 2003-P-0097, 2004-Ohio-6176, ¶ 29 (re-sentencing would not violate double jeopardy protections where the trial court failed to comply with statutory requirement of making findings on the record at the sentencing hearing).
{¶ 16} In turn, even if we were to find his sentence was void, thereby requiring this matter to be remanded for resentencing, Stegall would not have been subject to a violation оf double jeopardy as he appears to suggest. State v. James, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2008-04-037, 2009-Ohio-1453, ¶ 14 (trial court did not violate appellant‘s constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy by later correcting appellant‘s sentence because jeopardy does not attach to a void sentence); State v. Creager, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2007-01-007, 2007-Ohio-5188, ¶ 19 (“[b]ecause jeopardy did not attach to the void sentence, the trial court did
{¶ 17} In light of the foregoing, because the trial court‘s decision sentencing Stegall to a total aggregate term of 15 years in prison is not void, Stegall‘s argument is barred by the dоctrine of res judicata as he could have raised this issue as part of his direct appeal. Although inapplicable to a void sentence, see State v. Waltz, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2013-10-077, 2014-Ohio-2474, ¶ 26, under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of cоnviction 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 wаs raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment. State v. Blankenburg, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-04-088, 2012-Ohio-6175, ¶ 10. Therefore, because the doctrine of res judicata applies to bar Stegall‘s claim, his single assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 18} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.