State v. WeberState v. Weber
Rendered on the 9th day of October, 2020.
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by SARAH E. HUTNIK, Atty. Reg. No. 0095900, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor‘s Office, Appellate Division, Montgоmery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
JOHN PAUL WEBER, III, Inmate No. 548-698, London Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 69, London, Ohio 43140 Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se
WELBAUM, J.
Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} On April 16, 2007, a jury found Weber guilty of kidnapping, murder, robbery, obstructing justice, and tampering with evidence. After the jury issued its verdict, the trial court sentenced Weber to serve an aggregate term of 19 years to life in prison. Weber then appealed from his convictions.
{¶ 3} On appeal, Weber claimed that the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to inspect certain grand jury testimony and by overruling his request for a jury instruction on intervening and superseding causes. Wеber also claimed that his convictions for kidnapping and obstructing justice were not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence. After reviewing each of these claims, we overruled Weber‘s assignments of error and affirmed his convictions. See State v. Weber, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22167, 2008-Ohio-4025, ¶ 56.
{¶ 4} Over ten years later, on August 15, 2019, Weber filed a pro se motion to vacate his sentence. In support of his motion, Weber argued that he was entitled to a resentencing hearing so that he could be advised of the duty to enroll in Ohio‘s violent offender database (“VOD“) as required by the newly enacted statutory provisions in
{¶ 6} Following the dismissal of his most rеcent appeal, on January 14, 2020, Weber filed another pro se motion to vacate his sentence. In that motion, Weber once again argued that he should be resentenced so that the trial court could advise him of the duty to enroll in the VOD as required by
{¶ 7} Weber now appeals from the trial court‘s decision overruling his second motion to vacate his sentence, and he raises a single assignment of error for review.
Assignment of Error
{¶ 8} Under his assignmеnt of error, Weber contends that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his January 14, 2020 motion to vacate his sentence. We, however, disagree.
{¶ 10} Appellate courts review decisions on petitions for post-conviction relief under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Perkins, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24397, 2011-Ohio-5070, ¶ 16, citing State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, 860 N.E.2d 77, ¶ 45. ” ‘Abuse of discretion’ has been defined as an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” (Citation omitted.) AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990).
{¶ 11} In the Jаnuary 14, 2020 petition at issue, Weber argued that he was entitled to a resentencing hearing so that he could be advised of the duty to enroll in the VOD as required by
{¶ 12}
{¶ 13} In this case, Weber‘s successive petition did not demonstrate any of the requirements of
{¶ 14} The doctrine of res judicata can also apply to bar successive petitions for post-conviction relief. Finfrock, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 16944, 1998 WL 726478, at *5. Under the doctrine of res judicata, ” ‘[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the
{¶ 15} Morе specifically, res judicata operates to bar claims that are raised in successive petitions for post-conviction relief when the trial court has already ruled on the same сlaims in prior post-conviction proceedings. State v. Tucker, 2d Dist. Darke No. CA 1181, 1988 WL 38147, *3 (Apr. 18, 1988). “Accordingly, if the claims brought in a second petition for post-conviction relief are ones that were or could have been brought in an earlier petition for post-conviction relief, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying the second petition for post-conviction relief on the basis of res judicata.” (Citation omitted.) Finfrock at *5. Accord State v. Waver, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108820, 2020-Ohio-2724, ¶ 32. Therefore, ” ‘[t]rial courts are not required to entertain successive petitions which allege the same grounds as an earlier petition.’ ” State v. Dixon, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27991, 2019-Ohio-230, ¶ 18, quoting State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 68613, 1996 WL 17333, *2 (Jan. 18, 1996), citing State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399, 411, 639 N.E.2d 67 (1994).
{¶ 16} Here, the VOD enrоllment notification claim raised in Weber‘s successive
{¶ 17} We note that the VOD enrollment statutes on which Weber‘s petition for post-conviction relief was based are currently under review by the Supreme Court of Ohio. Seе State v. Hubbard, 159 Ohio St.3d 1427, 2020-Ohio-3473, 148 N.E.3d 568 (Table); State v. Jarvis, 159 Ohio St.3d 1427, 2020-Ohio-3473, 148 N.E.3d 568 (Table). Specifically, the Supreme Court of Ohio is reviewing whether applying the VOD enrollment requirements to offenders like Weber, who committed their violent offense(s) prior tо the statutes’ effective date of March 20, 2019, violates the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution. Id. That said, since Weber‘s successive petition for post-conviction relief did not meet the requirements of
{¶ 18} Because Weber‘s January 14, 2020 motion to vacate sentence was a successive petition for post-conviction relief that did not meet the requirements of
{¶ 19} Having overruled Weber‘s assignment of error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
DONOVAN, J. and FROELICH, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Mathias H. Heck, Jr.
Sarah E. Hutnik
John Paul Weber, III
Hon. Dennis J. Adkins