[Cite as State v. Hairston, 2011-Ohio-3844.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 96437
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
CHARLES C. HAIRSTON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Case No. CR-331664
BEFORE: E. Gallagher, J., Blackmon, P.J., and Rocco, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 4, 2011
2
FOR APPELLANT
Charles C. Hairston, pro se
6111 Butler Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44127
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Katherine Mullin
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶ 1} This is an accelerated appeal authorized pursuant to App.R. 11.1
and Loc. R. 11.1.
{¶ 2} Charles Hairston appeals from the trial court’s denial of his
motion to void judgment. Finding no merit to this appeal, we affirm the
decision of the trial court.
{¶ 3} Primarily, we note that Hairston’s petititon, which can only be
classified as a petition for postconviction relief, was untimely filed. See
State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 1997-Ohio-304, 679 N.E.2d 1131; R.C.
3
2953.21(A)(1); R.C. 2953.21(A)(2). Moreover, Hairston has made no attempt
to establish the applicability of an exception that would allow the trial court
to consider his untimely petition. See R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) and R.C.
2953.23(A)(2). Accordingly, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain
his petition for postconviction relief. State v. Dugger, Franklin App. No.
06AP-887, 2007-Ohio-1243; State v. Russell, Franklin App. No. 05AP-391,
2006-Ohio-383.
{¶ 4} Even if we were to disregard the above, the arguments raised in
Hairston’s first, second, and third assignments of error are all issues that
could have been raised on his direct appeal. See State v. Hairston (1997),
121 Ohio App.3d 750, 700 N.E.2d 930. Accordingly, all three assignments of
error are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See State v. Saxon, 109
Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 826 N.E.2d 824; State v. Rodriguez,
Cuyahoga App. No. 95055, 2010-Ohio-4902; State v. Goldsmith, Cuyahoga
App. No. 95073, 2011-Ohio-840.
{¶ 5} Based on the foregoing, Hairston’s first, second, and third
assignments of error are overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
4
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said lower court to carry this judgment
into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, P.J., and
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR
Appendix
Assignments of Error:
“I. The trial court erred denying appellant’s motion without a
hearing and failure to merge the convictions on Counts 20 and
46 violates Fifth Amendment Protections against Double
Jeopardy.”
“II. The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion as
appellant was sentenced pre-Foster, which required judicial
findings in order to impose a sentence beyond the minimum.”
“III. The judgment of conviction is void wherein the
conviction was contrary to law wherein Ohio courts have
consistently held that R.C. 2907.04 is not a lesser included
offense of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2).”
5