[Cite as State v. Jones, 2016-Ohio-669.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 No. 15AP-1041 

v. : (C.P.C. No. 05CR-2681)

Keith L. Jones, : (ACCELERATED CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on February 23, 2016 

 

On brief: Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and 

Barbara A. Farnbacher, for appellee.

On brief: Keith L. Jones, pro se.

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

TYACK, J. 

{¶ 1} Keith L. Jones is appealing from various rulings in the Franklin County 

Court of Common Pleas. He assigns six errors for our consideration: 

[I.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THE 

MOTION FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 TO CORRECT THE 

VOID JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL RULE 32 TO 

BE A MOTION FOR POST CONVIXCTION [SIC] RELIEF 

PURSUANT TO R.C. 2953.21. 

[II.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TOP 

[SIC] SENTENCE APPELLANT TO COMMUNITY CONTROL 

ON EACH COUNT OF CONVICTION. 

[III.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS 

DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO SENTENCE 

APPELLANT TO A [SIC] COMMUNITY CONTROL ON 

COUNTS 1 & COUNT 4. 
No. 15AP-1041 2 

[IV.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT TREATED 

APPELLANT'S COMMUNITY CONTROL VIOLATION AS A 

PROBATION VIOLATION HEARING PRIOR TO THE 

ENACTMENT OF SENATE BILL 2. 

[V.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT VIOLATED 

APPELLANT'S COMMUNITY CONTROL FOR NON 

PAYMENT OF COURT COST WHEN APPELLANT WAS NOT 

MADE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT COMMUNITY 

SERVICE COULD BE PERFORMED IN LIEU OF COST. 

[VI.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO 

GIVE NOTIFICATION TO THE APPELLANT OF THE 

CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATING COMMUNITY 

CONTROL. 

{¶ 2} Years after he was sentenced to prison for a number of felony convictions, 

Jones filed a document entitled "Motion to Correct Void Judgment." A seventeen count 

indictment had charged Jones in Spring 2005. With the help of his counsel, Jones had 

entered into a plea bargain under the terms of which Jones had pled guilty to two felonies 

and the remaining charges were dismissed. 

{¶ 3} Jones failed to show up for court on the day he was scheduled for 

sentencing. As a result, he was finally sentenced over two and one half years later. The 

trial court judge assigned to his case sentenced Jones to ten years of incarceration but 

stayed the sentences for a period of five years of community control. 

{¶ 4} Jones did not comply with the conditions of his community control and, in 

March 2010, a warrant for his arrest was issued. In May 2011, he appeared in court and 

admitted that he had not complied with the conditions of his community control. The 

trial court judge ordered that the ten year sentence be enforced. 

{¶ 5} Jones pursued a direct appeal of his ten year sentence. A panel of this court 

upheld the revocation and sentence. 

{¶ 6} Jones followed with a motion in the trial court. The judge overruled the 

motion. 

{¶ 7} Jones again appealed and a panel of this court again affirmed the action of 

the trial court. 

{¶ 8} Jones filed more motions and lost on each one. A panel of this court again 

affirmed as to each motion. 
No. 15AP-1041 3 

{¶ 9} More recently, Jones filed the motion currently on appeal. The trial court 

considered it to be a petition for post-conviction relief. As such a petition, the filing was 

untimely. 

{¶ 10} We agree with the trial court that the most recent motion is in fact an 

untimely petition for post-conviction relief. 

{¶ 11} We also note the issues Jones now wishes to pursue were presented or could 

have been presented in one of his prior appeals. As a result, the issues are subject to the 

doctrine of res judicata. In short, for a number of reasons, Jones is not entitled to relief. 

{¶ 12} We note in addition that Jones did receive community control, but simply 

could not honor or appreciate the kindness of his sentencing judge in allowing him still 

the opportunity to live a law abiding life. 

{¶ 13} None of the assignments of error presented by Jones have merit. They are 

all overruled. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

DORRIAN, P.J., and HORTON, J., concur. 

_________________