Opinion
Court of Appeals No. WM-12-001 Trial Court No. 00 CR 177
12-21-2012
State of Ohio Appellee v. James B. Jones, Jr. Appellant
Thomas A. Thompson, Williams County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. James B. Jones, Jr., pro se.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Thomas A. Thompson, Williams County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
James B. Jones, Jr., pro se.
SINGER, P.J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from the judgment of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas following a resentencing hearing to correct the imposition of postrelease control. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} In 2002, appellant, James B. Jones, was convicted of kidnapping, robbery and aggravated murder. This court affirmed his convictions in State v. Jones, 6th Dist. No. WM-02-012, 2003-Ohio-1037.
{¶ 3} On November 30, 2011, appellant filed a motion for resentencing arguing that the trial court erred when sentencing him to postrelease control. The trial court granted his motion and scheduled a new sentencing hearing pursuant to State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332. Appellant now appeals from his resentencing setting forth the following assignment of error:
Whether a complete failure to advise a defendant about mandatory postrelease control at the plea colloquy renders the guilty plea unconstitutional, and the resulting attempted sentence a mere nullity and void.
{¶ 4} Although appellant appealed the trial court's 2012 resentencing order, his argument concerns the validity of his original plea hearing in 2002. We cannot address the merits of appellant's argument because appellant is barred from asserting this claim under the doctrine of res judicata. This issue could have been raised on direct appeal and, therefore, is barred from being raised in a subsequent proceeding. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraphs seven and nine of the syllabus. Even though the doctrine cannot bar review of the legality of the sentence where a court allegedly failed to advise the defendant of mandatory postrelease control, the doctrine still applies to other aspects of the merits of the conviction. Fischer, ¶38-40. Appellant's sole assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 5} On consideration, the judgment of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. Arlene Singer , P.J.
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
Stephen A. Yarbrough, J.
CONCUR.
______________
JUDGE
______________
JUDGE
______________
JUDGE