[Cite as State v. Feagan, 2011-Ohio-2025.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
Case No. 10CA46
MARCO A. FEAGIN
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 03-CR-86H
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 25, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JAMES J. MAYER, JR. MARCO A. FEAGIN, PRO SE
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Mansfield Correctional Institution
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO A480-240
Post Office Box 788
BY: BAMBI COUCH PAGE Mansfield, Ohio 44901
Assistant Richland County Prosecutor
38 South Park Street
Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 10CA46 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Marco A. Feagin appeals his conviction and sentence
in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} In the early morning hours of January 17, 2004, Appellant shot and killed
James Williams (“Williams”) at the American Legion on Harmon Avenue in Mansfield.
After the shooting, Williams was found lying on the floor near the disc jockey booth.
Paramedics transported Williams to the hospital where he died in surgery. The following
day, Appellant left the Mansfield area and went to Decatur, Illinois. Appellant eventually
turned himself into law enforcement officials on June 27, 2004.
{¶3} While Appellant was on the run, the Richland County Grand Jury indicted
him on charges resulting from the shooting. The grand jury charged him with one count
of murder, with a firearm specification; one count of possession of a firearm in a liquor
permit premises; and one count of possession of a weapon under disability. This matter
proceeded to a jury trial on December 13, 2004. The jury found Appellant guilty as
charged in the indictment.
{¶4} The trial court sentenced Appellant to fifteen years to life on the murder
count, to be served consecutive to the three-year sentence on the firearm specification.
The trial court also sentenced appellant to one year on the charge of possession of a
weapon in a liquor permit premises and one year for the charge of possession of a
weapon under disability, to be served concurrently with the murder sentence.
{¶5} Appellant timely appealed. Via Judgment Entry of February 15, 2006, this
Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction and sentence.
Richland County, Case No. 10CA46 3
{¶6} Appellant filed a motion for resentencing on November 18, 2009, and a
motion to vacate void judgment and order new sentencing hearing on March 1, 2010.
Appellant filed a motion to dismiss all further proceedings due to unreasonable delay in
sentencing, which the trial court overruled via Judgment Entry of March 23, 2010. On
March 24, 2010, Appellant was resentenced for the purpose of imposing mandatory
post-release control. A new sentencing entry was filed on March 25, 2010, imposing
the original sentence in addition to a five year term of mandatory post-release control.
{¶7} Appellant now appeals, assigning as error:
{¶8} “I. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERRED [SIC] IN NOT DISMISSING THE
CASE DUE TO UNREASONABLE DELAY?
{¶9} “II. DID THE PROSECUTOR KNOWINGLY USE PERJURED
TESTIMONY?
{¶10} “III. CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED DUE TO INSUFFICIENCY
OF EVIDENCE AND A FAILURE OF THE STATE TO CARRY THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BURDEN?
{¶11} “IV. DID THE PROSECUTOR COMMIT PROSECUTOR MISCONDUCT?”
I.
{¶12} In the first assignment of error, Appellant asserts the trial court erred in
denying his motion to dismiss for unreasonable delay in sentencing, pursuant to
Criminal Rule 32.
{¶13} Criminal Rule 32 reads:
{¶14} “(A) Imposition of sentence
Richland County, Case No. 10CA46 4
{¶15} “Sentence shall be imposed without unnecessary delay. Pending
sentence, the court may commit the defendant or continue or alter the bail. At the time
of imposing sentence, the court shall do all of the following:***”
{¶16} However, Criminal Rule 32(A) does not apply to defendants who must be
resentenced due to a void original sentence. State v. Brown, 2010-Ohio-4863.
Accordingly, Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.
II., III. and IV.
{¶17} Appellant’s remaining assignments of error assert common and
interrelated issues; therefore, we will address the arguments together.
{¶18} The second, third and fourth assignments of error raise challenges to the
underlying conviction affirmed by this Court in our February 15, 2006 Judgment Entry.
These arguments were or could have been raised upon direct appeal and therefore are
barred from being raised now by res judicata.
{¶19} Appellant asserts res judicata does not apply because this Court lacked
jurisdiction as no final appealable order existed at the time of his direct appeal pursuant
to State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d, 2008-Ohio-3330. In State v. Loyer, 2010-Ohio-1181,
this Court held Baker does not apply retroactively to a case in which the direct appeal
has become final prior to the date Baker was decided.1
{¶20} Based upon the above, Appellant’s second, third and fourth assignments
of error are overruled.
1
As writer of this Opinion, I note I agree with the result but not the rationale of Loyer. I
reach the same result for the reasons set forth in my dissent in State v. Griffin, 2010-
Ohio-3517.
Richland County, Case No. 10CA46 5
{¶21} The judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, J. concur
Farmer, J. dissents
s/ William B. Hoffman_________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
___________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
s/ John W. Wise _____________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
Richland County, Case No. 10CA46 6
Farmer, J., dissents
{¶22} I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in this court's opinion in
State v. Griffin, Coshocton App. No. 09CA21, 2010-Ohio-3517, judgment vacated and
remanded, 127 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-5948, and this court's subsequent opinion
following remand, State v. Griffin, Coshocton App. No. 09CA21, 2011-Ohio-1638.
s/ Sheila G. Farmer____________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
Richland County, Case No. 10CA46 7
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
MARCO A. FEAGIN :
:
Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 10CA46
For the reasons stated in our Opinion, the judgment of the Richland County Court
of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Appellant.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
___________________________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
s/ John W. Wise______________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
State v. Feagan
Combined Opinion