[Cite as State v. Johnson , 2019-Ohio-445.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

MADISON COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2018-07-021 Plaintiff-Appellee, : JUDGMENT ENTRY - vs - : (Accelerated Calendar) RONALD G. JOHNSON, : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2007CR-02-018

{¶ 1} This cause is an accelerated appeal arising out of the Madison County

Court of Common Pleas. 1 In 2007, appellant, Ronald G. Johnson, was sentenced to a two-year prison term in Madison County Cour t of Common Pleas Case No. 2007CR-02- 018 and a two-year prison term in Madison County Court of Common Pleas Case No.

2007CR-03-038. The sentences were order ed to be served consecutively to one another as well as consecutively to a sev en- to 25-year indefinite prison sentence previously imposed on appellant in Montgomery County. Appellant did not directly appeal his Madison County convictions or sentences. Starting in 2012, appellant began filing multiple motions seeking a "recalculation" of his sentence, arguing that the sentences imposed in his Madison County cases shoul d have been added to the end of

1. Pursuant to Loc.R. 6(A), we have sua sponte assigned this appeal to the accelerated calendar.Madison CA2018-07-021

- 2 - the minimum portion of the indefinite s entence imposed in the Montgomery County case, rather than added at the maximum end. Appellant's motions were denied by the trial court in 2012, 2013, and 2015. On July 2, 2018, appellant filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment on Consecutive Term Served, once again seeking to challenge his sentence. The trial court denied appellant's petition, finding the arguments barred by the doctrine of res judicata. {¶ 2} Appellant's sole assignment of error challenging the denial of his motion to vacate judgment is overruled on the basis of State v. Snead , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-01-014, 2014-Ohio-2895, ¶ 18-19. The trial court properly determined appellant's arguments are barred under the doctrine of res judicata, as such arguments were previously raised and addressed in prior decisions. Furthermore, to the extent appellant argues he is entit led to postconviction relie f under R.C. 2953.21 and 2953.23, we find his arguments to be without merit as his petition is untimely and his arguments relate only to sentencing issues rather than addressing issues relating to guilt. As this court has previously recognized, "[t]he pl ain languag e of R.C. 2953.23( A)(1)(b) extends only to trial error and does not extend to sentencing errors, except for those occurring within the capital punishment context." State v. Keith , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-07- 131, 2014-Ohio-169, ¶ 17; State v. Moore , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2005-07-071, 2006-Ohio-1897, ¶ 13. Appellant's sole assignment of error is, therefore overruled. {¶ 3} Judgment affirmed. {¶ 4} Pursuant to App.R. 11.1(E), this ent ry shall not be re lied upon as authority and will not be published in any form. A certified copy of this Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. {¶ 5} Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.Madison CA2018-07-021

- 3 - __________________________________ Robert A. Hendricks on, Presiding Judge

__________________________________ Stephen W. Powell, Judge

__________________________________ Robert P. Ringland, Judge