[Cite as State v. Brooks, 2021-Ohio-2427.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

FREDERICK BROOKS 

Defendant-Appellant 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Appellate Case No. 29004 

Trial Court Case No. 2009-CR-593 

(Criminal Appeal from 

Common Pleas Court) 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N 

Rendered on the 16th day of July, 2021. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by J. JOSHUA RIZZO, Atty. Reg. No. 0099218, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, 

Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422

 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

 

FREDERICK BROOKS, Inmate No. A618-389, Pickaway Correctional Institution, P.O. 

Box 209, Orient, Ohio 43143 

 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 

WELBAUM, J. 
-2- 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Frederick Brooks, appeals pro se from the judgment of 

the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas denying his Motion to Correct 

Conviction. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be 

affirmed. 

Facts and Course of Proceedings 

{¶ 2} On November 20, 2009, a jury found Brooks guilty of one count of aggravated 

robbery (deadly weapon) in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), one count of aggravated 

robbery (serious harm) in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), one count of felonious assault 

(serious harm) in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), one count of felonious assault (deadly 

weapon) in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), and one count of having weapons while under 

disability (prior drug conviction) in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3). Brooks was also 

found guilty of four firearm specifications that were attached to the aggravated robbery 

and felonious assault counts. 

{¶ 3} At sentencing, the trial court imposed ten years in prison for each of the two 

aggravated robbery counts, eight years in prison for each of the two felonious assault 

counts, and four years in prison for having weapons while under disability. The trial court 

ordered the sentences for aggravated robbery to run concurrently with each other and 

concurrently with one of the sentences for felonious assault and the sentence for having 

weapons while under disability. The second sentence for felonious assault was ordered 

to run consecutively to the other sentences. The trial court also imposed three years in 

prison for each of the four firearm specifications and ordered those sentences to run 

concurrently with each other and consecutively and prior to the definite term of 
-3- 

imprisonment, for a total sentence of 21 years. 

{¶ 4} Brooks appealed from his conviction. In support of his appeal, Brooks 

argued that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the 

evidence established that he committed the offenses in question while acting in selfdefense. Brooks also argued that the trial court erred by failing to merge the two counts 

of felonious assault as allied offenses of similar import. Upon review, we determined 

that Brooks’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. We did, 

however, find that the felonious assault counts were allied offenses that should have been 

merged at sentencing. Therefore, we reversed Brooks’s sentences for felonious assault 

and remanded the matter to the trial court for purposes of merging the felonious assault 

counts and resentencing Brooks accordingly. See State v. Brooks, 2d Dist. Montgomery 

No. 23784, 2010-Ohio-5886. 

{¶ 5} On December 22, 2010, the trial court resentenced Brooks. In doing so, the 

trial court merged the felonious assault counts and their attendant firearm specifications. 

Following the merger, the trial court once again imposed a total, aggregate sentence of 

21 years in prison. 

{¶ 6} Over the next ten years, Brooks filed multiple pro se motions with the trial 

court, including a Motion to Correct Conviction1 filed on November 18, 2020. In that 

motion, Brooks challenged his conviction for having weapons while under disability on 

grounds that it was based on a nonexistent felony drug conviction. Brooks also briefly 

argued that his two counts of aggravated robbery were allied offenses of similar import 

1 The full caption of Brooks’s motion is titled “Motion to Correct a Conviction that was not 

in Accordance with Statutory Authority (Evidentiary Hearing Requested) Conviction 

Contrary to Law.” 
-4- 

that the trial court should have merged at sentencing. On December 29, 2020, the trial 

court issued a decision denying Brooks’s motion on grounds that the claims asserted 

therein were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Brooks now appeals from that 

decision, raising two assignments of error for review. 

First and Second Assignments of Error 

{¶ 7} Under his first assignment of error, Brooks claims to be challenging his 

sentence, but actually raises a sufficiency of the evidence argument concerning his 

conviction for having weapons while under disability under R.C. 2923.13(A)(3). 

Specifically, Brooks argues that the State failed to establish that he had a prior felony 

drug conviction, which is required for a violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3). Under his second 

assignment of error, Brooks contends that his two counts of aggravated robbery were 

allied offenses of similar import that the trial court should have merged at sentencing. 

Upon review, we find that both of Brooks’s arguments are barred by the doctrine of res 

judicata. 

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

convicted defendant who was represented by counsel 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. 

Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus. 

Therefore, “any issue that could have been raised on direct appeal,” but was not, is “not 

subject to review in subsequent proceedings.” State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 
-5- 

2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 16, citing State v. Hutton, 100 Ohio St.3d 176, 2003-

Ohio-5607, 797 N.E.2d 948, ¶ 37 and State v. D'Ambrosio, 73 Ohio St.3d 141, 143, 652 

N.E.2d 710 (1995). 

{¶ 9} Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Brooks of having weapons 

while under disability is an issue that could have been raised during Brooks’s direct 

appeal. Brooks did not raise that issue on direct appeal; therefore, his attempt to do so 

now is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See State v. Florence, 2d Dist. Montgomery 

No. 28674, 2021-Ohio-867, ¶ 37; State v. Walls, 2d Dist. Miami No. 99-CA-9, 1999 WL 

957825, *1 (Aug. 20, 1999). The same holds true for Brooks’s allied offense claim. See 

Florence at ¶ 35. We note that the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[t]he imposition 

of compound sentences for allied offenses is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction, to be 

challenged at sentencing and remedied on direct appeal.” (Emphasis added.) State v. 

State ex rel. Romine v. McIntosh, 162 Ohio St.3d 501, 2020-Ohio-6826, 165 N.E.3d 1262, 

¶ 15. Therefore, because Brooks did not raise the aggravated robbery allied offense 

claim in his direct appeal, res judicata bars him from doing so now. 

{¶ 10} Because all of Brooks’s claims are barred by res judicata, his first and 

second assignments of error are overruled. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 11} Having overruled both of Brooks’s assignments of error, the judgment of the 

trial court denying Brooks’s Motion to Correct Conviction is affirmed. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

TUCKER, P.J. and EPLEY, J., concur. 
-6- 

Copies sent to: 

Mathias H. Heck, Jr. 

J. Joshua Rizzo 

Frederick Brooks 

Hon. Mary Lynn Wiseman