[Cite as State v. Schiefer, 2016-Ohio-8180.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsDANIEL SCHIEFER 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

Case No. 16-CA-53 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of 

Common Pleas, Case No. 14 CR 557 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 8, 2016 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

KENNETH OSWALT DANIEL SCHIEFER, PRO SE 

Licking County Prosecutor's Office #709-756 

20 S. Second St. N.C.C.C. 

Newark, Ohio 43055 P.O. Box 1812 

 Marion, Ohio 43301 
Licking County, Case No. 16-CA-53 2

Hoffman, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Daniel Schiefer appeals the July 5, 2016 Judgment 

Entry entered by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for 

resentencing. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} On February 13, 2015 Appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of 

burglary and was sentenced to two years in prison, the term to run consecutively to 

Appellant’s four year sentence in Knox County Court of Common Pleas on counts of 

burglary and safe cracking. Appellant did not file a direct appeal from his convictions and 

sentence. 

{¶3} On May 2, 2016, Appellant filed a motion for resentencing. The trial court, 

via Judgment Entry of July 5, 2016, denied Appellant’s motion. 

{¶4} Appellant appeals, assigning as error, 

{¶5} I. TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO MAKE REQUIRED 

STATUTORY FINDINGS UNDER 2929.14(C)(4) ON THE RECORD AND JOURNAL 

ENTRY BEFORE SENTENCING MR. SCHIEFER TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES. 

{¶6} II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO FIND INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF MR. SCHIEFER’S COUNSEL FOR COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO 

CONSULT WITH HIM AFTER NOTIFYING COUNSEL HE WISHED TO APPEAL HIS 

SENTENCE VIOLATING HIS 6TH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 

 

1 A full rendition of the underlying facts is unnecessary for resolution of this appeal. 
Licking County, Case No. 16-CA-53 3

{¶7} Preliminarily, we note this case comes to us on the accelerated calendar. 

App.R. 11.1, which governs accelerated calendar cases, provides in pertinent part the 

following: 

 (E) Determination and judgment on appeal 

 The appeal will be determined as provided by App. R. 11.1. It shall 

be sufficient compliance with App. R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason 

for the court's decision as to each error to be in brief and conclusionary 

form. 

 The decision may be by judgment entry in which case it will not be 

published in any form. 

{¶8} One of the important purposes of the accelerated calendar is to enable an 

appellate court to render a brief and conclusory decision more quickly than in a case on 

the regular calendar where the briefs, facts, and legal issues are more complicated. 

Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Association, 11 Ohio App.3d 158 (10th Dist.1983). 

{¶9} This appeal shall be considered in accordance with the aforementioned 

rules. 

I. 

{¶10} Appellant maintains the trial court failed to make the necessary statutory 

findings required for the imposition of consecutive sentences at the sentencing hearing 

and in his judgment entry of sentence. 
Licking County, Case No. 16-CA-53 4

{¶11} As set forth above, Appellant did not file a direct appeal from his conviction 

and sentence herein. 

{¶12} Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars the 

defendant from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from that 

judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that the defendant raised or 

could have raised at the trial which resulted in that judgment of conviction or on appeal 

from that judgment. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967). Res 

judicata also implicitly prohibits a defendant from “re-packaging” evidence or issues that 

either were, or could have been, raised in the context of the petitioner's trial or direct 

appeal. State v. Lawson, 103 Ohio App.3d 307, 315, 659 N.E.2d 362(12th Dist.1995). 

{¶13} Appellant’s claim the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences 

could have been raised in a direct appeal from his sentence. State v. Wolfe, Delaware 

No. 16CAA020008, 2016-Ohio-4616; See State v. Adams, 10th Dist. No. 14AP–623, 

2015–Ohio–868, ¶ 8 (defendant's claim that the trial court erred by failing to make the 

findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences could 

have been raised in his direct appeal, and thus “any further review of defendant's 

sentence is barred by res judicata”); State v. Petitto, 8th Dist. No. 99893, 2013–Ohio–

5435, ¶ 13 (defendant's claim that the trial court imposed consecutive sentences without 

making appropriate findings “could have and should have been raised in a timely filed 

appeal” from trial court's sentencing entry, and therefore “this claim is now barred by the 

doctrine of res judicata”); State v. Ferrell, 5th Dist. No.2013CA00121, 2013–Ohio–5521, 

¶ 15 (“Appellant either raised or could have raised arguments regarding the 

appropriateness of consecutive sentences * * * during his direct appeal.) 
Licking County, Case No. 16-CA-53 5

{¶14} The Ohio Supreme Court has declined to find sentences void based on the 

court's failure to comply with certain sentencing statutes, including the consecutive 

sentencing statute. State v. Sanders, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27189, 2014–Ohio–5115, ¶ 5, 

citing State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526, 2013–Ohio–5014, ¶ 8 (noting that 

challenges to a sentencing court's judgment as to whether sentences must be served 

concurrently or consecutively must be presented in a timely direct appeal). Thus, because 

the trial court's “alleged failure to comply with the consecutive sentencing statute does 

not render [the] sentence void, res judicata applies.” Id. at ¶ 6. Accord, State v. Bowshier,

2nd Dist. Clark No.2015–CA–53, 2016–Ohio–1416, ¶ 16; State v. Hall, 9th Dist. Summit 

No. 27942, 2016–Ohio–909, ¶ 7; State v. Chapin, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP–1003, 

2015–Ohio–3013, ¶ 8. 

{¶15} We find Appellant’s argument in the first assignment of error concerning the 

trial court’s alleged failure to make the statutory findings prior to imposing consecutive 

sentences is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 

II. 

{¶16} Appellant further asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion for 

resentencing as he was denied the effective of assistance of counsel for counsel’s failure 

to file a direct appeal or to consult with him regarding a direct appeal. 

{¶17} We find Appellant’s motion for resentencing is not the proper procedural 

mechanism to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel argument of failure to file a direct 

appeal. 

{¶18} Accordingly, Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled. 
Licking County, Case No. 16-CA-53 6

{¶19} The July 5, 2016 Judgment Entry of the Licking County Court of Common 

Pleas is affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, J. 

Farmer, P.J. and 

Delaney, J. concur