[Cite as State v. Broom, 2016-Ohio-906.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 27703
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
ANDRE BROOM COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 1988 07 1062
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: March 9, 2016
WHITMORE, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Andre Broom, appeals an order of the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In 1988, Mr. Broom pleaded guilty to trafficking in marijuana. On October 14,
2014, while facing sentencing in an unrelated federal case, Mr. Broom moved the trial court to
vacate his guilty plea and find the judgment against him to be void. The trial court denied the
motion on October 22, 2014. Mr. Broom appealed, but this Court dismissed his appeal as
untimely. On January 14, 2015, Mr. Broom moved the trial court to find that its previous order
was void, alleging that the trial court did not give him time to file a reply brief before denying
the motion. The trial court denied the motion, and Mr. Broom filed this appeal.
2
II.
Assignment of Error Number One
THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED LOCAL RULE 7.14 IN FAILING TO WAIT
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE MOTION,
BEFORE DENYING [BROOM’S] MOTION TO FIND THE GUILTY PLEA
AND JUDGMENT ENTRY VOID FILED ON OCTOBER 15, 2014 AND
DENIED ON OCTOBER 22, 2014 “PRIOR TO” [BROOM’S] REPLY TO THE
STATE’S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR RELIEF.
{¶3} Broom’s first assignment of error argues that the trial court should have
concluded that because it did not afford him fourteen days to file a reply in support of his motion
to vacate his guilty plea and sentence, its order denying that motion was void. We disagree.
{¶4} A void judgment may be challenged at any time, either by direct appeal or
collateral attack. State v. Knuckles, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27571, 2015-Ohio-2840, ¶ 8, citing
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, ¶ 40. When an alleged defect renders a
judgment voidable rather than void, however, it must be challenged on direct appeal, and res
judicata applies to subsequent collateral challenges. See Knuckles at ¶ 12.
{¶5} An alleged violation of Loc.R. 7.14(A) of the Summit County Court of Common
Pleas may render a judgment voidable, but it does not mean the judgment is void. See, e.g., State
v. Holcomb, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21682, 2003-Ohio-7167, ¶ 9. Accordingly, Broom should
have raised this argument in a timely appeal from the trial court’s October 22, 2014, order. He
failed to do so, and his first assignment of error is overruled on that basis.
Assignment of Error Number Two
THE TRIAL COURT ERR[ED] IN OVERRULING [BROOM’S] MOTION TO
FIND THE GUILTY PLEA AND JUDGMENT ENTRY VOID BY APPLYING
RES JUDICATA TO A VOID JUDGMENT CONTRARY TO THE SUPREME
COURT’S HOLDING IN STATE V. FISHER, 128 OHIO ST.3D 92; 2010-
OHIO-6738.
3
{¶6} Broom’s second assignment of error challenges the trial court’s October 22, 2014,
order. Broom filed an untimely appeal from that order, and this Court dismissed the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. The October 22, 2014, order is not the subject of this appeal, so Broom’s
second assignment of error is not properly before this Court, and we decline to consider it.
III.
{¶7} Broom’s first assignment of error is overruled, and his second assignment of error
is not properly before this Court. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas
is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
BETH WHITMORE
FOR THE COURT
4
MOORE, J.
SCHAFER, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
ANDRE B. BROOM, pro se, Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.