[Cite as State v. Johnson, 2021-Ohio-1517.]

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

RONALD G. JOHNSON 

Defendant-Appellant 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Appellate Case No. 28978 

Trial Court Case No. 1986-CR-2584 

(Criminal Appeal from 

Common Pleas Court) 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N 

Rendered on the 30th day of April, 2021. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

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

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

Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 

45422 

 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

 

RONALD G. JOHNSON, #A518-770, 2240 Hubbard Road, Youngstown, Ohio 44505 

 Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se 

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

 

HALL, J. 
-2- 

{¶ 1} On June 29, 2020, Ronald G. Johnson filed a “Motion for Satisfaction of 

Judgment,” contending that his prison sentence had been completely served in June 2018 

and that the August 2024 completion date calculated by the Bureau of Sentence 

Computation (BSC) was incorrect. On November 23, 2020, the trial court overruled the 

motion. Johnson appeals. 

{¶ 2} In his brief, Johnson lists two assignments of error. First, he asserts that it 

was “plain error” for the trial court to overrule his motion for satisfaction of judgment. 

Second, he states that res judicata cannot be used to prevent relief from a void judgment, 

again indicating that it was plain error for the trial court to deny relief. We overrule the 

assignments of error. As further detailed herein, it was not error at all, let alone plain error, 

for the trial court to overrule Johnson’s motion, which challenged BSC’s calculation that 

his maximum sentence will not expire until August 2024. Furthermore, Johnson’s 

contention that res judicata does not apply is based on the assertion that the judgment 

that his maximum sentence will not expire until August 2020 is void. The judgment is not 

void; in fact, it is an existing and final judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court. 

{¶ 3} This is at least the eighth case in the Ohio Supreme Court, in this court, and 

in two other courts of appeals in which Johnson has contended that the BSC incorrectly 

calculated that his maximum prison sentence will not expire until August 2024. We have 

twice previously ruled against Johnson, concluding that the Supreme Court has held the 

BSC calculation is correct, and we cannot alter a conclusion made by the Supreme Court. 

See State v. Johnson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28162, 2019-Ohio-1801; State v. 

Johnson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28503, 2020-Ohio-1307. (“the trial court had no 
-3- 

authority to address BSC's calculation of Johnson's sentence.”). Johnson cannot simply 

change the title of his motion to obtain a different result. 

{¶ 4} In Johnson v. Moore, 149 Ohio St.3d 716, 2017-Ohio-2792, 77 N.E.3d 967, 

and State ex rel. Johnson v. Bur. of Sentence Computation, 159 Ohio St.3d 552, 2020-

Ohio-999, 152 N.E.3d 257, the Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that Johnson's 

sentence had been properly calculated and that his maximum prison term will not expire 

until 2024. Neither the trial court nor this court can change the Supreme Court’s holdings. 

{¶ 5} The assignments of error are overruled. 

{¶ 6} The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 

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

DONOVAN, J. and EPLEY, J., concur. 

Copies sent to: 

Mathias H. Heck, Jr. 

Jamie J. Rizzo 

Ronald G. Johnson 

Hon. Gregory F. Singer