[Cite as State v. Wright, 2016-Ohio-3542.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 27880
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
RAMON JAMAL WRIGHT COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 95 10 2828A
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: June 22, 2016
CARR, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Ramon Wright, appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In 1996, Wright was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder with death
specifications, as well as several other criminal offenses. Wright’s convictions stemmed from an
event that occurred on September 25, 1995. A death sentence was not imposed. The trial court
sentenced Wright to a term of life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 30 years. His
convictions were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal. State v. Wright, 9th Dist. Summit No.
18261, 1998 WL 65481 (Feb. 4, 1998).
{¶3} In the years since his sentencing, Wright has repeatedly attempted to attack his
convictions through a variety of avenues, including petitions for post-conviction relief, motions
for new trial, and motions for resentencing.
2
{¶4} On June 8, 2015, Wright filed a pro se “motion for resentencing based on void
judgment.” The State responded with a memorandum in opposition to the motion. The trial
court subsequently issued a journal entry denying Wright’s motion.
{¶5} On appeal, Wright raises three assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND ABUSED ITS
[sic] DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO RE-SENTENCE APPELLANT
WRIGHT WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO NOTIFY THE
APPELLANT AT “SENTENCING” ON OCTOBER 1ST[,] 1996[,] OF THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a), OF THE FACT OF
HIS FAILURE TO PAY COURT COSTS, AND THE COSTS [OF] THE
PROSECUTION, COULD RESULT IN THE TRIAL COURT “ORDERING”
APPELLANT TO PERFORM COMMUNITY SERVICE “UNTIL THE
JUDGMENT IS PAID OR UNTIL THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE
APPELLANT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED SCHEDULE[.]”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, IN
VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT[S] TO
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS AND SECTION 10, ARTICLE I OF
THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, FOR FAILING TO “OBJECT” TO THE TRIAL
COURT’S IMPOSITION OF COURT COSTS, AND THE COSTS OF THE
PROSECUTION, AS THE TRIAL COURT “DID NOT NOTIFY APPELLANT
WRIGHT, THAT HIS FAILURE TO PAY COURT COSTS, AND THE COSTS
OF THE PROSECUTION COULD RESULT IN THE TRIAL COURT
ORDERING THE APPELLANT TO PERFORM COMMUNITY SERVICE.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR AND DENIED MR[.]
WRIGHT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WHEN IT IMPOSED COURT COST[S]
AND THE COST FOR PROSECUTION WITHOUT THE PROPER
NOTIFICATION THAT HIS FAILURE TO PAY COSTS, OR THE
PROSECUTION COSTS COULD RESULT IN THE TRIAL COURT
“ORDERING” THE APPELLANT TO PERFORM COMMUNITY SERVICE.
{¶6} In his three assignments of error, Wright contends the trial court erred in denying
his 2015 motion for resentencing. This Court disagrees.
3
{¶7} Nearly twenty years after being convicted of two counts of aggravated murder and
receiving a life sentence, Wright argues that his sentence is void because the trial court failed
comply with R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a), which requires a sentencing court to notify a defendant that
failure to pay costs may result in court-ordered community service. At the outset, we note that
the community service notification provision contained R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a) is inapplicable to
this case as it did not go into effect until March 24, 2003, almost seven years after Wright was
sentenced in 1996. More significantly, this Court has previously recognized that “the Ohio
Supreme Court has applied its void-sentence analysis in limited circumstances[,] [and we] will
not extend its reach without clear direction from the Supreme Court.” State v. Jones, 9th Dist.
Wayne No. 10CA0022, 2011-Ohio-1450, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Culgan, 9th Dist. Medina No.
09CA0060-M, 2010-Ohio-2992, ¶ 20; see also State v. Berrien, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2015-
02-004, 2015-Ohio-4450, ¶ 8-11 (holding that “failure to advise [a defendant] of court costs does
not render the sentence void but is instead only reversible error”); State v. Isa, 2d Dist.
Champaign No. 2014-CA-31, 2015-Ohio-2876, ¶ 14; State v. Massey, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 15
CAA 05 0043, 2015-Ohio-5193, ¶ 24. It follows that while Wright styled his motion as a
“motion for resentencing based on void judgment,” his motion was, in actuality, an untimely and
successive petition for post-conviction relief.
{¶8} This Court has recognized that “[s]uccessive petitions for post-conviction relief
are governed by R.C. 2953.23. Under R.C. 2953.23(A) a trial court is forbidden from
entertaining a second or successive petition for post-conviction relief unless it meets two
conditions. First, the petitioner must show either that he was unavoidably prevented from
discovering the facts upon which he relies in the petition, or that the United States Supreme
Court has, since his last petition, recognized a new federal or state right that applies retroactively
4
to the petitioner. Second, the petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence that a
reasonable factfinder would not have found him guilty but for constitutional error at trial. See
R.C. 2953.23(A)(1).” State v. Kyle, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25974, 2012-Ohio-456, ¶ 7, quoting
State v. Williams, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25879, 2011-Ohio-6141, ¶ 15.
{¶9} In this case, Wright’s untimely and successive petition did not offer an
explanation regarding why he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which
his petition was based, nor did it identify a retroactive right that has been recognized by the
United States Supreme Court. It follows that the trial court lacked authority to consider the
merits of Wright’s petition and correctly denied him the requested relief.
{¶10} Wright’s three assignments of error are overruled.
III.
{¶11} Wright’s assignments of error are overruled. 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
5
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.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
WHITMORE, J.
SCHAFER, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
RAMON JAMAL WRIGHT, pro so, Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
State v. Wright
Combined Opinion