[Cite as State v. Wilson , 2014-Ohio-293.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 12CA3354

vs. : RICHARD H. WILSON, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Defendant-Appellant. :

______________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: James S. Sweeney, James Sweeney Law, L.L.C, 673 Mohawk Street, Ste. 403, Columbus, Ohio 43206

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Matthew S. Sch midt, Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jeffrey C. Marks, Ross County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 72 North Paint Street, Chillicothe, Ohio 45601

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS DATE JOURNALIZED: 1-27-14 ABELE, P.J. {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Ross Count y Common Pleas Court judgment that classified Richard H. Wilson, defendant below and appellant herein, a sexual predator. Appellant assigns the following error for review 1 :

1 Appellant’s brief does not include a separate statement of the assignments of error. See App.R. 16(A)(3). Thus, we take the assignments of error fr om the brief's Table of Contents. “APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATESROSS, 12CA3354 2 CONSTITUTION, THUS RENDERING HIS GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY.” {¶ 2} On June 27, 2008, the Ross County Grand Ju ry returned an indictment that charged appellant with two c ounts of rape and four count s of gross sexual imposition. 2 In June 2009, appellant entered guilty pleas to six offenses and was sentenced to serve an aggregate total term of ten years in prison 3 . No appeal was taken from that judgment. {¶ 3} At this point, the proceedings appear somewhat confusing. The Ross County

Common Pleas Court website show s no determination of sexual offender status. However, on April 10, 2012, appellant file d a pro se motion for reconsiderati on of his sexual offender status. At the September 14, 2012 hearing, th e trial court dete rmined appellant to be a sexual predator. This appeal followed.

2 The original papers are not part of the record in this particular phase of the proceedings. Thus, we take our history of these proceedings from the Ross County Court of Common Pleas website. See http://gov.courtview.com/ OH.Ross.CP/CaseDetail/default.aspx?csnr=08CR000319 (accessed November 25, 2013).

3 We say “six offenses” rather than “t hose offenses” because the State asserts in its brief that the charges were amended as a part of the plea agreement. {¶ 4} Appellant argues in his assignment of error that he received constitutionally

ineffective assistance of trial counsel prior to entering guilty pleas to the six offenses. However, appellant’s notice of appeal in this case is taken from the trial court’s sexual offender classification decision and judgme nt. Appellate courts may only review and “affirm, modify, or reverse the judgment or final order appealed .” (Emphasis added.) App.R . 12(A)(1)(a). Here, the order being appealed is not the original judg ment of conviction, but, rather, the October 5, 2012

sexual offender classification. Appellant does not challenge his sexual offender classification onROSS, 12CA3354 3 appeal and we cannot consider other issues at this time. {¶ 5} Second, even if the Rules of Appellate Procedure a llowed us to consider a judgment other than the one being appealed, it is well-settled that unde r the doctrine of res judicata, issues that could have been raised in an appeal of ri ght are barred from being raised in later proceedings. See e.g. State v. Creech , 4 th Dist. Scioto No. 12CA3500, 2013-Ohio-3791, at ¶40; State v. Lofton , 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 12CA21, 2013–Ohio–1121, at ¶8. In the case sub judice, ineffective assistance of trial counsel is an issue that could have, and should have, been raised in a first appeal of right. It was not. Consequently, res judicata now bars this issue from being raised at this stage of the proceedings. {¶ 6} Accordingly, for all of these reasons, we hereby overrule appella nt's assignment of

error and affirm the tr ial court's judgment.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.[Cite as State v. Wilson , 2014-Ohio-293.] JUDGMENT ENTRY It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed and appellee recover of appellant the costs

herein taxed.

The Court finds there were reas onable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Ross County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appella te Procedure. McFarland, J. & Hoover, J.: C oncur in Judgment & Opinion

For the Court

BY: Peter B. Abele Presiding Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this documen t constitutes a final j udgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.