[Cite as State v. Nethers, 2011-Ohio-1317.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
-vs- :
:
LOREN NETHERS : Case No. 10-CA-94
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas,
Case No. 06CR602
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 18, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
DANIEL H. HUSTON LOREN NETHERS, PRO SE
20 South Second Street Inmate No. 555-147
4th Floor North Central Correctional Institution
Newrak, OH 43055 P.O. Box 1812
Marion, OH 43301
Licking County, Case No. 10-CA-94 2
Farmer, P.J.
{¶1} On October 27, 2006, the Licking County Grand Jury indicted appellant,
Loren Nethers, on three counts of sexual battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03, three
counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02, and eight counts of gross sexual imposition
in violation of R.C. 2907.05.
{¶2} A jury trial was held on May 1, 2007. At the close of the state's case, the
prosecutor moved to dismiss the three rape counts and one of the sexual battery
counts. At the close of appellant's case, appellant made a Crim.R. 29 motion for
acquittal on the remaining counts. The trial court granted the motion as to one of the
sexual battery counts.
{¶3} The jury found appellant guilty of the remaining counts. By judgment entry
filed June 5, 2007, the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of twelve
years in prison. Appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal. See,
State v. Nethers, Licking App. No. 07 CA 78, 2008-Ohio-2679.
{¶4} On May 5, 2010, appellant filed a motion to vacate sentence/re-sentence
appropriately/motion for new trial. Appellant argued his sentence was void because the
verdict form did not contain the degree of the offense nor indicate that an aggravated
element was found pursuant to R.C. 2945.75, and his counsel was ineffective for failing
to rectify the void sentence. By judgment entry filed July 22, 2010, the trial court denied
the motion.
{¶5} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
Licking County, Case No. 10-CA-94 3
I
{¶6} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT CORRECTING DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT'S VOID SENTENCE, VIOLATING HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT."
II
{¶7} "BECAUSE THE SENTENCE LACKS STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND IS
INVALID THE TRIAL COURT HAS DENY (SIC) APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO APPEAL,
BY REFUSING TO CORRECT A 'VOID SENTENCE', DIVESTING THE APPELLATE
COURT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION."
III
{¶8} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING APPELLANT WITHOUT
THE GUILTY VERDICT HAVING STATED EITHER THE DEGREE OF THE OFFENSE
OF WHICH THE APPELLANT IS FOUND GUILTY, OR THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL
ELEMENT OR ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT, VIOLATING THE APPELLANT SIXTH
AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL."
IV
{¶9} "A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION MUST INCLUDE THE SENTENCE
AND THE MEANS OF CONVICTION, WHETHER BY PLEA, VERDICT, OR FINDING
BY THE COURT, TO BE A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER."
I
{¶10} Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate
sentence/re-sentence appropriately/motion for new trial.
{¶11} Appellant argues the verdict form failed to conform to the mandates of
R.C. 2945.75 and State v. Pelfrey, 112 Ohio St.3d 422, 2007-Ohio-256.
Licking County, Case No. 10-CA-94 4
{¶12} In appellant's direct appeal, he assigned as error, "[a]ppellant was
sentenced in contravention of law." State v. Nethers, Licking App. No. 07 CA 78, 2008-
Ohio-2679, ¶37. This court specifically addressed this issue and the Pelfrey case as
follows:
{¶13} "R.C. §2945.75(A)(2) requires that a guilty verdict state either the degree
of the offense of which an offender is found guilty, or that the additional elements that
make an offense one of a more serious degree are present. If neither is included, R.C.
§2945.75(A)(2) directs that 'a guilty verdict constitutes a finding of guilty of the least
degree of the offense charged.'
{¶14} "In Pelfrey, the Supreme Court of Ohio interpreted R.C. §2945.75(A)(2)
and held that 'a verdict form signed by a jury must include either the degree of the
offense of which the defendant is convicted or a statement that an aggravating element
has been found to justify convicting a defendant of a greater degree of a criminal
offense.' Id. at syllabus.
{¶15} "Appellant raises this challenge in connection with his third-degree felony
convictions for Gross Sexual Imposition, in violation of R.C. §2907.05(A)(4).
{¶16} "***
{¶17} "The verdict form does not contain the degree of the offense or any
statement of an aggravating element. Thus, Appellant contends that he can be
convicted only of the least degree of the offense. We disagree.
{¶18} "The Tenth District Court of Appeals recently considered and rejected this
very argument in terms of GSI convictions. See State v. Kepiro, Franklin App. No.
06AP-1302, 2007-Ohio-4593, at ¶29-34. In Kepiro, the Tenth District held that there are
Licking County, Case No. 10-CA-94 5
no additional elements or circumstances over and above the elements of the offense set
forth in R.C. §2907.05(A) that enhance the penalty for a GSI conviction. With nothing
more than the guilty verdict, an appellant is convicted of a third-degree felony. Thus,
the reasoning in Pelfrey was not applicable, and the verdict form did not need to contain
the degree of the offense or a statement that an aggravating element had been found
by the jury. (See also, State v. Crosky, Tenth Dist. App. No. 06AP-655, 2008-Ohio-
145).
{¶19} "Upon review of the instant case, we find that the Gross Sexual Imposition
statute under which Appellant was charged contains all the necessary elements of the
offense. A violation of R.C. §2907.05(A)(4) is a felony of the third degree. There are no
additional elements or circumstances over and above the elements of the offense set
forth [in] R.C. §2907.05(A)(4) that enhance the penalty for the conviction. Thus, the
verdict form did not need to contain the degree of the offense or a statement that an
aggravating element has been found by the jury." Nethers, at ¶50-57.
{¶20} There was no appeal taken from our decision. In Grava v. Parkman
Township, 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 1995-Ohio-331, syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio
explained res judicata as "[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all
subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence
that was the subject matter of the previous action."
{¶21} Under the doctrine of res judicata, this assignment of error fails as a
matter of law.
{¶22} Assignment of Error I is denied.
Licking County, Case No. 10-CA-94 6
II, III, IV
{¶23} In these assignments, appellant challenges this court's jurisdiction to have
reviewed his assignments of error in his direct appeal as his sentence was void, and the
judgment of conviction.
{¶24} Appellant argues this court had no jurisdiction to hear his direct appeal
because his sentence was void. As we found in his direct appeal, appellant's sentence
was not void.
{¶25} Appellant also argues he had the "right to have the jury find the existence
of 'any particular fact' that the law makes essential to his punishment," and cites Blakely
v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296, in support. See, Appellant's Brief at 10. As held
by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856,
paragraph seven of the syllabus, "[t]rial courts have full discretion to impose a prison
sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give
their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum
sentences."
{¶26} Lastly appellant argues the judgment of conviction "does not contain the
manner of conviction" (Appellant's Brief at 12), and cites State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d
197, 2008-Ohio-3330, syllabus, in support:
{¶27} "A judgment of conviction is a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02
when it sets forth (1) the guilty plea, the jury verdict, or the finding of the court upon
which the conviction is based; (2) the sentence; (3) the signature of the judge; and (4)
entry on the journal by the clerk of court. (Crim.R.32(C), explained.)"
Licking County, Case No. 10-CA-94 7
{¶28} We have examined appellant's sentencing entry filed June 5, 2007 and
find it meets the requirements of Crim.R 32(C) and Baker. Further, the trial court
properly informed appellant of postrelease control. T. at 9; State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio
St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197.
{¶29} Assignments of Error II, III, and IV are denied.
{¶30} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio is
hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Edwards, J. concur.
_s/ Sheila G. Farmer__________________
_s/ John W. Wise_____________________
_s/ Julie A. Edwards__________________
JUDGES
SGF/sg 314
Licking County, Case No. 10-CA-94 8
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
LOREN NETHERS :
:
Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 10-CA-94
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio is affirmed. Costs to
appellant.
_s/ Sheila G. Farmer__________________
_s/ John W. Wise_____________________
_s/ Julie A. Edwards__________________
JUDGES