[Cite as State v. Guiley, 2014-Ohio-2035.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

DARYL LYNN GUILEY : Case No. 2013CA00211 

 : 

 : 

 Defendant - Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court 

 of Common Pleas, Case No. 

 2012-CR-1434 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 12, 2014 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

JOHN D. FERRERO DARYL LYNN GUILEY #634-296 

Prosecuting Attorney Marion Correctional Institution 

 P.O. Box 57 

By: RONALD MARK CALDWELL Marion, OH 43301-0057 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

Appellate Section 

110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510 

Canton, OH 44702-1413 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00211 2 

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} Appellant Daryl Lynn Guiley appeals a judgment of the Stark County 

Common Pleas Court overruling his motion to correct his sentence. Appellee is the 

State of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} In 2012, appellant was charged by indictment with one count of attempted 

murder, two counts of felonious assault, and one count of domestic violence. Appellant 

entered a guilty plea to the attempted murder charge and one of the felonious assault 

charges, while the remaining charges were dismissed. He was sentenced to eight 

years incarceration for attempted murder and three years for felonious assault, to be 

served concurrently. The sentencing entry states, “Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D), the 

sentence of eight (8) years in prison imposed for the offenses are [sic] authorized by 

law, has been approved jointly by the defendant and the prosecution.” Judgment Entry, 

January 16, 2013. 

{¶3} On August 12, 2013, appellant filed a motion to correct his sentence. The 

trial court summarily overruled the motion. Appellant assigns four errors on appeal to 

this Court: 

{¶4} “I. TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ADVISING OF THE RIGHT TO 

APPEAL PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL RULE 32(B). 

{¶5} “II. TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT CONSIDERING THE NECESSARY 

FACTORS SET FORTH IN OHIO REVISED CODE 2929.11 AND 2929.12. 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00211 3 

{¶6} “III. TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN CONVICTING OF CHARGES THAT 

WERE TO BE MERGED AS ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR IMPORT PURSUANT 

TO OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 2941.25. 

{¶7} “IV. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO 

DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF CONFINEMENT OWED TO APPELLANT 

PRIOR TO SENTENCING.” 

I.-IV. 

{¶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, other than a direct appeal from the judgment, any defense or lack of due 

process that was raised or could have been raised at the trial which resulted in the 

judgment of conviction, or on appeal from that judgment. State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St. 

3d 93, 1996-Ohio-337, 671 N.E.2d 233, syllabus. The issues raised by appellant in his 

motion to correct the sentence and in the instant appeal are all sentencing issues 

cognizable on direct appeal from his judgment of conviction and sentence, and 

appellant’s collateral attack on the judgment on these grounds is barred by res judicata. 

{¶9} We recognize that appellant may not have been entitled to appellate 

review of his sentence based on R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), which provides: 

{¶10} “A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this 

section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the 

defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” 
Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00211 4 

{¶11} However, to allow a defendant to collaterally attack a judgment on 

grounds he could have raised on direct appeal if they had not barred by R.C. 

2953.08(D)(1) would render that statute a nullity. 

{¶12} Accordingly, appellant’s four assignments of error are overruled. The 

judgment of the Stark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. Costs are assessed to 

appellant. 

By: Baldwin, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Farmer, J. concur.