[Cite as State v. King, 2012-Ohio-5895.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 98400

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs. 

SIDNEY KING

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-533345 

BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Blackmon, A.J., and Celebrezze, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 13, 2012 
FOR APPELLANT 

Sidney King, pro se 

Inmate No. 582-725 

Mansfield Correctional Institution 

1150 North Main Street 

Mansfield, OH 44903 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: John Hanley 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

The Justice Center, 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to 

App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1, the trial court records, and briefs of the parties. 

Appellant, Sidney King, appeals from the decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of 

Common Pleas that denied his pro se motion for resentencing. For the reasons stated 

herein, we affirm. 

{¶2} King was indicted on multiple counts on January 29, 2010. He pleaded 

guilty to one count each of felonious assault with a three-year firearm specification and a 

forfeiture specification, domestic violence, having a weapon while under disability with a 

forfeiture specification, endangering children, and resisting arrest with a forfeiture 

specification. On or about March 22, 2010, the trial court sentenced King to a total 

prison term of 14 years with five years of mandatory postrelease control, and the court 

ordered King to forfeit a revolver. King did not file a direct appeal. 

{¶3} On May 10, 2012, King filed a pro se motion for resentencing. The trial 

court denied the motion, and King filed this appeal. 

{¶4} King raises one assignment of error that claims his constitutional rights were 

violated because the trial court failed to consider whether his sentence was consistent 

with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders. Because 

King has forfeited his ability to raise this issue, we must reject his challenge. 
{¶5} Initially, we find that King’s challenge is barred by res judicata. “Res 

judicata bars the assertion of claims against a valid, final judgment of conviction that 

have been raised or could have been raised on appeal.” State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 

448, 2010-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 59, citing State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 

N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus. Because King could have raised the 

issue on direct appeal, but failed to do so, res judicata bars him from raising this challenge 

more than two years after his sentence was imposed. See State v. Gilmore, 8th Dist. No. 

97884, 2012-Ohio-3962, ¶ 20-21; State v. Poole, 8th Dist. No. 96921, 2012-Ohio-2622, ¶ 

20. 

{¶6} Furthermore, this court has recognized that in order to preserve a 

proportionality or consistency challenge for appeal, a defendant must raise the issue and 

present some evidence about similar offenders and their sentences to the trial court. 

State v. Wilson, 8th Dist. No. 97657, 2012-Ohio-4153, ¶ 15. Because no transcript has 

been provided on appeal, we must presume regularity in the proceedings. Knapp v. 

Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980). Moreover, there 

is nothing to indicate that King raised the issue or presented any evidence about similar 

offenders and their sentences to the trial court. As a result, King failed to preserve the 

issue for review and we must overrule King’s sole assignment of error. 

{¶7} 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. The defendant’s conviction having 

been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court 

for execution of sentence. 

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

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J., and 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR