[Cite as State v. Price, 2017-Ohio-7496.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio, : 

 No. 17AP-314 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : (C.P.C. 12CR-4513) 

 No. 17AP-315 

v. : (C.P.C. No. 13CR-3719) 

Joshua L. Price, : (ACCELERATED CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on September 7, 2017 

 

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

Michael P. Walton, for appellee. 

On brief: Joshua L. Price, pro se. 

 

APPEALS from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

KLATT, J. 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Joshua L. Price, appeals from judgments of the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to vacate sentences in these 

two cases. For the following reasons, we affirm those judgments. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background 

{¶ 2} In 2012, appellant and his two brothers were indicted for multiple counts 

arising from numerous armed robberies, including many counts of robbery, aggravated 

robbery, and kidnapping. The indictments also charged him with firearm specifications 

pursuant to R.C. 2941.145 for most of those counts. After initially entering a not guilty 

plea, appellant entered a guilty plea in both of these cases to one count of attempted 
Nos. 17AP-314 and 17AP-315 2 

aggravated burglary and eight counts of aggravated robbery. He also pled guilty to the 

attendant firearm specifications for all but one of those offenses. The remaining counts 

were dismissed. As a result, the trial court sentenced appellant to a total prison term of 22 

years, a total that included 12 years of prison for the firearm specifications. This court 

affirmed appellant's sentence, rejecting his argument that the trial court improperly 

imposed multiple sentences for his firearm specifications. State v. Price, 10th Dist. No. 

13AP-1085, 2014-Ohio-4065 ("Price 1"). 

{¶ 3} On March 9, 2017, appellant filed his motion to vacate sentence. Appellant 

asked the court to vacate his sentence because the trial court did not make the statutorily 

required findings in R.C. 2929.14(C) before it imposed consecutive sentences and also 

failed to properly impose mandatory prison terms for his firearm specifications. The trial 

court summarily denied the motion. 

II. Appellant's Appeal 

{¶ 4} Appellant appeals and assigns the following errors: 

[1.] The trial court failed to make the consecutive-sentence 

findings under R.C. 2929.14 and failed to impose the required 

mandatory sentencing provisions under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1), 

pursuant to R.C. 2941.145 rendering the sentence 

unauthorized and contrary to law under statutory law, and the 

United States and Ohio Constitutions under the 6th and 14th 

amendments. 

[2.] The trial court failed to impose the required mandatory 

provisions at sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(a), 

rendering the sentence unauthorized by law and void. 

A. Findings for Consecutive Sentences 

{¶ 5} Appellant first argues that his sentences should be vacated because the trial 

court did not make the required findings in order to impose consecutive sentences. We 

disagree, as res judicata bars appellant from making this argument. 

{¶ 6} Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a 

convicted defendant from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from 

that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could 

have been raised by the defendant at the trial, which resulted in that judgment of 

conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment. State v. Lowe, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-481, 
Nos. 17AP-314 and 17AP-315 3 

2015-Ohio-382, ¶ 10, citing State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967), paragraph nine of the 

syllabus. Appellant could have raised this argument in his direct appeal but he did not. 

As a result, res judicata bars him from raising it in this appeal. State v. Mullen, 9th Dist. 

No. 28453, 2017-Ohio-7234, ¶ 4-6 (argument that trial court failed to make finding barred 

by res judicata).1 We recognize that an exception to the application of res judicata applies 

to void judgments. State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, ¶ 30. The 

argument appellant presents, however, would not render the trial court's judgment void. 

State v. Berecz, 4th Dist. No. 16CA15, 2017-Ohio-266, ¶ 18-19, citing State v. Chapin, 10th 

Dist. No. 14AP-1003, 2015-Ohio-3013, ¶ 9 (alleged error in not making findings would not 

render sentence void). 

B. Firearm Specifications 

{¶ 7} Appellant also argues that the trial court did not properly impose his 

mandatory sentences for the firearm specifications. However, the basis for appellant's 

argument is not clear. To the extent that he argues the trial court did not properly impose 

the sentences, this court concluded in appellant's previous appeal that the trial court's 

imposition of sentences for the firearm specifications was not contrary to law. Price 1 at 

¶ 5-13. To the extent that he appears to argue that the trial court had to make certain 

findings in order to impose the mandatory sentences for his firearm specifications, res 

judicata bars him from presenting it here because he did not raise that argument in his 

first appeal. State v. Beal, 2d Dist. No. 2015-CA-91, 2016-Ohio-3271, ¶ 21-22 (applying 

res judicata and noting that defendant "could have raised sentencing issues about the 

firearm specification in both of his prior appeals but failed to do so"); State v. Bonner, 6th 

Dist. No. E-12-041, 2013-Ohio-2240, ¶ 7 (argument regarding imposition of sentences for 

firearm specifications barred by res judicata); Mullen (argument that trial court failed to 

make findings in order to impose sentence barred by res judicata). This argument would 

not render his judgment void. Bonner at ¶ 7-8 (error in firearm specification sentencing 

would not render sentence void); State v. McCall, 7th Dist. No. 12 MA 57, 2012-Ohio5604, ¶ 20-23 (same); Berecz. 

 

1 We note that this court, in appellant's brothers' appeals, determined that the trial court's comments at 

the brothers' joint sentencing hearing did satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2929.14(C). State v. Price, 10th 

Dist. No. 13AP-1088, 2014-Ohio-4696, ¶ 30-41; State v. Price, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-1082, 2015-Ohio-315, 

¶ 13. 
Nos. 17AP-314 and 17AP-315 4 

III. Conclusion 

For these reasons, we overrule appellant's assignments of error and affirm the 

judgments of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 

Judgments affirmed. 

TYACK, P.J., and DORRIAN, J., concur.