[Cite as State v. Rogers, 2014-Ohio-1236.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 100075

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

DEMALE ROGERS

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-03-438533 

BEFORE: Keough, P.J., Kilbane, J., and McCormack, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 27, 2014 
APPELLANT

Demale Rogers, pro se 

Inmate No. 462-269 

Marion Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 57 

Marion, Ohio 43301 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Adam M. Chaloupka 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

The Justice Center, 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Demale Rogers, appeals the trial court’s decision 

denying his “motion for issuance of ‘revised’ judgment entry of conviction and sentence, 

and assessment of subject matter jurisdiction.” For the reasons that follow, we affirm the 

trial court’s decision. 

{¶2} In 2004, Rogers pled guilty to murder and was sentenced to 15 years to life in 

prison. Although Rogers appealed his conviction and sentence, this court dismissed the 

appeal for failure to file a record. In 2012, Rogers filed a “motion to amend journal entry 

and motion for sentencing” contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider 

his case due to a defective indictment. The motion also challenged whether the 

sentencing journal entry was a final appealable order. The trial court denied the motion; 

this court affirmed the trial court’s decision in State v. Rogers, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

98059, 2012-Ohio-4598 (“Rogers I”). In Rogers I, this court summarized the arguments 

raised on appeal: 

[Rogers] contends that his conviction and sentence are void because the 

indictment charging him with murder and the subsequent journal entry of 

conviction and sentence were never properly filed with the clerk of courts. 

He claims the time-stamps on the indictment and journal entries fail to 

demonstrate that these documents were actually filed with the court. As 

such, he argues, the trial court never had jurisdiction to hear this case. 

Id. at ¶ 4. 

{¶3} In June 2013, Rogers filed a “motion for issuance of ‘revised’ judgment entry 

of conviction and sentence, and assessment of subject matter jurisdiction.” In this 

motion, Rogers again raised the issues of defective indictment and that the trial court did 
not issue a final appealable order under Crim.R. 32(C). The trial court denied Rogers’s 

motion. 

{¶4} Rogers appeals from that decision, raising the following assignments of 

error. 

I. Where a prima facie case exists to support a conclusion of a lack of a 

final appealable order, O.R.C. [section] 2505.02 (for want of strict 

compliance of the filing procedures enumerated in: O.R.C. [section] 

2303.08; and, O.R.C. [section] 2303.10), a trial court abuses its discretion 

thereby implicating due process when it fails to issue a requested ‘revised 

judgment entry.’ see: Dunn v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 364. 

II. Whether a hearing is required to ascertain the accuracy of the record 

(documents, pleadings and orders) where those records are inherently and 

prejudicially conflicted, the failure to accord such hearing implicates due 

process and renders each of the conflicted proceedings a mere nullity and 

void. 

{¶5} In this appeal, Rogers raises the exact arguments that were raised and 

rejected in Rogers I. 

{¶6} As recognized by the Ohio Supreme Court, a final judgment of conviction 

precludes a criminal 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 * 

* * on an appeal from that judgment.” State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 

2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 17, quoting State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 

N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus. The doctrine of res judicata prevents 
the endless relitigation of an issue on which a defendant has already had full opportunity 

to be heard and, therefore, promotes the legal principles of finality and judicial economy. 

Saxon. 

{¶7} Accordingly, we find Rogers’s appeal barred by res judicata. His 

assignments of error are therefore overruled. 

{¶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. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, PRESIDING JUDGE 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., and 

TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR