[Cite as State v. Thomas, 2014-Ohio-2410.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 100749
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
CHRISTOPHER THOMAS
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-10-535943-A
BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Celebrezze, P.J., and Stewart, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 5, 2014
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Albert L. Purola
38298 Ridge Road
Willoughby, OH 44094
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: T. Allan Regas
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} This is an accelerated appeal brought pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and
Loc.App.R. 11.1. Defendant Christopher Thomas appeals from the resentencing
mandated by this court’s decision in State v. Thomas, 197 Ohio App.3d 176,
2011-Ohio-6073, 966 N.E.2d 939 (8th Dist.) (“Thomas I”), reversing Thomas’s sentence
based on the failure to merge allied offenses of similar import. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
{¶2} The facts are undisputed.
Thomas’s convictions in [the underlying] case result[ed] from his
inappropriate relationships with two of his students while he was employed
as a teacher at a middle school. The two victims were females, aged
fourteen and thirteen. Thomas had a sexual encounter with the younger
girl. He also sent sexually-explicit electronic messages to the girls, and
convinced the girls to take sexually-explicit photographs of themselves and
to send those photographs to his cell phone; he then transferred the images
to his computer.
Id. at ¶ 5.
{¶3} In the current appeal, Thomas claims that his appellate counsel was
ineffective in Thomas I and that there are insufficient facts to support his conviction
entered upon a no-contest plea. We find no merit to either argument. “Res judicata bars
the assertion of claims against a valid, final judgment of conviction that have been raised
or could have been raised on appeal.” State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448,
2010-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 59, citing State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226
N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus. Thomas’s claims could have been
raised in Thomas I and any post-dispositive process available through his direct appeal,
such as an application to reopen the appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Thomas’s claims
are overruled.
{¶4} Finding no merit to Thomas’s two assigned errors, we affirm the decision of
the trial court.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were no reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common
pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded to the trial court for
execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and
MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR