[Cite as State v. Shearer, 2016-Ohio-7302.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 103848

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs. 

LANDRA SHEARER

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-08-510282-A 

BEFORE: Laster Mays, J., E.A. Gallagher, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 13, 2016

-i-
FOR APPELLANT 

Landra Shearer, pro se 

Inmate No. 562645 

Lake Erie Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 8000 

Conneaut, Ohio 44030 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Daniel T. Van 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

Justice Center, 9th floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Landra Shearer (“Shearer”), appeals the trial court’s 

denial of his motion to correct the sentencing order and the trial court’s decision denying 

him a hearing. We affirm the trial court’s decision. 

{¶2} Shearer was found guilty of attempted murder, a first-degree felony, in 

violation of R.C. 2903.02(A), with firearm and forfeiture specifications; two counts of 

felonious assault, second- and third-degree felonies, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(1) and 

(2), with firearm and forfeiture specifications; and two counts of having weapons while 

under disability, third-degree felonies, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), with firearm 

and forfeiture specifications. Shearer was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. 

I. Facts 

{¶3} Shearer was sentenced by the trial court on February 20, 2009. He filed a 

timely appeal with this court for a new trial. This court affirmed Shearer’s conviction 

but remanded for resentencing, holding that felonious assault is an allied offense of 

attempted murder. State v. Shearer, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92974, 2010-Ohio-1666. 

The trial court complied with the ruling and entered an entry vacating Shearer’s 

conviction for felonious assault. Since then, Shearer has filed nine additional motions 

from 2010 until 2015 asking the trial court to correct the already corrected journal entry. 
The trial court has repeatedly stated that the issue was resolved on remand. However, 

Shearer assigns three errors for our review; 

I. The trial court erred when it sentenced appellant to multiple and 

consecutive firearm specifications for offenses charged and based from one 

single act and action against a single victim in one single shooting incident. 

II. The trial court erred in sentencing the appellant to consecutive 

sentences for multiple offenses where all the offenses charged are based on 

and from a single act where no separate animus to the separate charges have 

ever been established to support the multiple consecutive sentences for and 

from one single act and action. 

III. The trial court erred in sentencing the appellant as if separate acts 

were committed at separate times even where and when the bill of 

particulars state that all the charged offenses are or were committed at the 

same time with the single act committed. 

II. Res Judicata 

A. Standard of Review 

{¶4} “Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion is the doctrine under which a 

final judgment on the merits bars a party from bringing another lawsuit based upon the 

same claim.” State v. Thompson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 70532, 1996 Ohio App. 

LEXIS 5202 (Nov. 21, 1996). “Res judicata extends to bar not only claims which 

actually were litigated, but every question which might properly have been litigated.” 

Id. 

Under the doctrine of res judicata, * * * issues cannot be considered in 

postconviction proceedings under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.21 where 

they have already been or could have been fully litigated by the prisoner 

while represented by counsel, either before his judgment of conviction or on 

direct appeal from that judgment. Issues properly before a court on a 

petition for postconviction relief are issues which could not have been 

raised on direct appeal due to the fact that the evidence supporting such 
issues is dehors the record. If a court finds that an issue raised in a 

petition for postconviction relief has, or should have been raised on direct 

appeal or in a previous postconviction relief motion, the trial court may 

dismiss the petition on the grounds of preclusion. 

Id. 

B. Law and Analysis 

{¶5} Shearer argues three assignments of error contending that the trial court erred 

because it did not merge the firearm specifications into a single specification when it 

merged the attempted murder and felonious assault convictions. However, his claim is 

barred by res judicata. 

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a valid, final judgment rendered upon the 

merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the 

same transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of a previous 

action. The Ohio Supreme Court has identified four elements necessary to 

bar a claim under the doctrine of res judicata: (1) there is a final, valid 

decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the second 

action involves the same parties or their privies as the first; (3) the second 

action raises claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; 

and (4) the second action arises out of the transaction or occurrence that 

was the subject matter of the previous action. 

Lenard v. Miller, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99460, 2013-Ohio-4703, ¶ 27. 

{¶6} Shearer is barred from bringing this claim because he could have raised these 

issues in his 2010 appeal. 

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. Santiago, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95564, 2011-Ohio-3059, ¶ 14. 
{¶7} This court, in State v. Jordan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100686, 

2014-Ohio-2408, held that the trial court’s denial, of the appellant’s motion for 

resentencing because his offenses were allied, was proper because it was barred by res 

judicata, and the motion was successive to previously denied motions. This court 

rendered a final, valid decision in 2010 on these issues. Shearer’s assignments of error 

could have been litigated in the 2010 action because it concerns the same subject matter. 

Therefore, Shearer’s claims are barred by res judicata, and we overrule all assignments of 

error. 

{¶8} Judgment is affirmed. 

It is ordered that the appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said 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. 

__________________________________________ 

ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR