[Cite as State v. Orr, 2014-Ohio-501.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 100166

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs. 

MAXIE ORR, JR.

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-541628 

BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Boyle, A.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 13, 2014 
FOR APPELLANT 

Maxie Orr, Jr., pro se 

Inmate #600-040 

Grafton Correctional Institution 

2500 S. Avon-Beldon Road 

Grafton, OH 44044 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Mary H. McGrath 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

Justice Center - 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Appellant Maxie Orr, Jr., appeals from the order of the Cuyahoga County 

Court of Common Pleas that denied his motion to merge illegal firearm specifications. 

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm. 

{¶2} In January 2011, Orr was convicted of attempted murder, aggravated robbery, 

theft, carrying a concealed weapon, discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises, 

and firearm specifications. He was sentenced to nine years in prison. His convictions 

and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Orr, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

96377, 2011-Ohio-6269 (“Orr I”). 

{¶3} In Orr I, the court addressed an allied offenses of similar import challenge 

and ruled as follows: 

The trial court did merge the felonious assault conviction into the 

attempted murder conviction and also merged the kidnapping conviction 

into the aggravated robbery conviction. Therefore, the issue now is 

whether the attempted murder and the aggravated robbery convictions, and 

their separate firearm specifications, should merge as well. Applying the 

merger analysis to the facts, they should not. The record evidence reflects 

that the aggravated robbery was completed before defendant shot at [the 

victim]. Accordingly, the offenses were not committed with the same 

conduct and should not be merged. 

Id. at ¶ 38. 
{¶4} In June 2013, Orr filed a motion to merge illegal firearm specifications, 

claiming that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on the three-year 

firearm specifications in Counts 1 and 2. The trial court denied the motion, finding res 

judicata barred the claim. 

{¶5} Orr filed this appeal, raising two assignments of error for our review. His 

first assignment of error asserts that the case lacks a final order because the trial court’s 

entry denying his motion does not include “a time stamp showing journalization by the 

clerk of court” as required by Crim.R. 32(C). This argument is misguided. Crim.R. 

32(C) pertains to the judgment of conviction. In this case, Orr already filed a direct 

appeal from the judgment of conviction, and his convictions and sentence were affirmed 

in Orr I. Further, insofar as a judgment of conviction is required to bear a time stamp 

showing journalization, we have previously found that a time stamp reflecting the 

judgment entry had been received for filing is sufficient to provide notice of 

journalization by the clerk and complies with the requirement of Crim.R. 32(C). State v. 

Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99428, 2013-Ohio-3154; see also State v. Caulton, 7th 

Dist. Mahoning No. 12 MA 150, 2013-Ohio-2953, ¶ 22 (finding a date stamp showing the 

date the judgment entry filed with the clerk for journalization complies with the purpose 

of Crim.R. 32(C) by placing the defendant on notice that the 30-day time for filing an 

appeal has begun pursuant to App.R. 4(A)). 

{¶6} Orr’s motion to merge illegal firearm specifications was effectively an 

untimely postconviction motion. Under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2), Orr was required to file a 
petition for postconviction relief “no later than one hundred eighty days after the date on 

which the trial transcript is filed in the court of appeals in the direct appeal of the 

judgment of conviction.” Orr’s first assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶7} Orr’s second assignment of error claims the trial court erred in denying his 

motion to merge the firearm specifications, which he asserts were part of the same 

transaction. However, not only was Orr’s motion untimely, the issue he raises is barred 

by res judicata. Orr maintains he did not raise the issue of merging the two firearm 

specifications in Orr I. However, our review reflects that merger of the offenses and 

their firearm specifications was raised and addressed in Orr I, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

96377, 2011-Ohio-6269, at ¶ 37-38. To the extent Orr argues the issue of merger as it 

relates to the two firearm specifications was not raised in his first appeal, we nonetheless 

find that the issue is barred by res judicata because it could have been raised, or was not 

successfully challenged, on direct appeal in Orr I. Therefore, we overrule the second 

assignment of error. 

{¶8} Judgment affirmed. 

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

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having 

been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court 

for execution of sentence. 
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

MARY J. BOYLE, A.J., and 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR