[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, Ap pellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, 5th F loor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee RONALD G. JOHNSON, #A518-770, 2240 Hubbard Road, Youngstown, Oh io 44505 Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se

. . . . . . . . . . . . . HALL, J.-2-

{¶ 1} On June 29, 2020, Ronald G. Johnson filed a “Motion for Satisfa ction of Judgment,” contending that his prison sentence had been complet ely served in June 2018 and that the August 2024 completion date calculated by the Bure au of Sentence Computation (BSC) was incorrect. On November 23, 2020, the tria l 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 fo r satisfaction of judgment. Second, he states that res judicata cannot be used to prevent r elief 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 er ror at all, let alone plain error, for the trial court to overrule Johnson’s motion, which challen ged BSC’s calculation that his maximum sentence will not expire until August 2024. Further more, Johnson’s contention that res judicata does not apply is based on the ass ertion 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 t hat the BSC incorrectly calculated that his maximum prison sentence will not expire unt il August 2024. We have twice previously ruled against Johnson, concluding that the Sup reme Court has held the BSC calculation is correct, and we cannot alter a conclusion ma de 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 co urt 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 t hat Johnson's sentence had been properly calculated and that his maximum pris on term will not expire until 2024. Neither the trial court nor this court can change t he 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