[Cite as State v. Samuels, 2018-Ohio-3675.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 106520

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

 RAYMOND SAMUELS 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-06-482720-A 

BEFORE: Keough, J., Stewart, P.J., and Laster Mays, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 13, 2018 
[Cite as State v. Samuels, 2018-Ohio-3675.]

APPELLANT

Raymond Samuels, pro se 

Inmate No. A511168 

Grafton Correctional Institution 

2500 South Avon Belden Road 

Grafton, Ohio 44044 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. O’Malley 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Katherine Mullin 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

The Justice Center, 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
[Cite as State v. Samuels, 2018-Ohio-3675.]

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Raymond Samuels, pro se, appeals the trial court’s 

denial of his motion to correct his sentence. Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm. 

I. Background and Procedural History

{¶2} In June 2006, Samuels was indicted in a 19-count indictment. He 

subsequently entered a guilty plea to one count of aggravated burglary, two counts of 

attempted murder, two counts of kidnapping, and one count of escape. 

{¶3} At the sentencing hearing, counsel for Samuels suggested that “some of 

these offenses are allied offenses of similar import.” The trial court responded “some 

may be, that’s correct,” and later asked counsel which of the offenses might be allied. 

Trial counsel responded that “the kidnapping and the attempted murder could be 

considered allied offenses of similar import.” The trial judge stated, “uh-huh,” and then 

proceeded to sentencing without making any findings that the offenses were allied. 

{¶4} The court sentenced Samuels to 9 years on the aggravated burglary charge, 

10 years on each of the attempted murder charges, 10 years on each of the kidnapping 

charges, and 2 years on the escape charge. The judge ordered the sentences for the two 

attempted murder counts and the two kidnapping counts to be served concurrent to each 

other but consecutive to the burglary count and the escape charge to run concurrent to all 

counts, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 29 years. 

{¶5} Samuels appealed to this court, arguing in a single assignment of error that 

the trial court had failed to ensure that its total sentence was proportionate to sentences 
imposed on similarly situated offenders who committed similar offenses. This court 

affirmed, finding no error in sentencing. State v. Samuels, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

88610, 2007-Ohio-3904, ¶ 18, 20. 

{¶6} In October 2017, Samuels filed a motion to correct his sentence. The trial 

court denied the motion, and this appeal followed. 

II. Law and Analysis

{¶7} In his sole assignment of error, Samuels challenges the trial court’s denial 

of his motion to correct his sentence. Specifically, he argues that his sentence is void 

because the trial court determined that his offenses were allied but then failed to merge 

them for sentencing. He further contends that because his sentence is void, his argument 

is not subject to principles of res judicata. 

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

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

that judgment, any defense or claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have 

been raised by the defendant at the trial that resulted in the judgment of conviction, or on 

an appeal from that judgment. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 

(1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus. This doctrine “promotes the principles of finality 

and judicial economy by preventing endless relitigation of an issue on which a defendant 

has already received a full and fair opportunity to be heard.” State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio 

St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 18. 
{¶9} Where a sentence imposed on an individual is void, that individual may 

challenge the void portions of the sentence at any time. State v. Fayne, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 105641, 2017-Ohio-8889, ¶ 6, citing State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 

403, 2016-Ohio-7658, 71 N.E.3d 234, ¶ 22. However, where the sentence is not void, 

any alleged sentencing error must be challenged on direct appeal. Williams at ¶ 23. 

Thus, to survive the res judicata bar, Samuels must demonstrate that his sentence is void. 

If it is not void, principles of res judicata preclude any further challenge to his sentence 

because Samuels could have raised the issue on direct appeal. 

{¶10} In Williams, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified the application of res judicata 

to postconviction proceedings that raise issues of voidness regarding sentences imposed 

on allied offenses. The Williams court concluded that when the trial court finds that the 

offenses are not allied offenses of similar import, or when it does not make any findings 

regarding whether the offenses are allied, and imposes a separate sentence for each 

offense, any alleged error must be asserted in a timely appeal or it will be barred by res 

judicata. Id. at ¶ 26. On the other hand, when a trial court finds that offenses are allied 

but imposes a separate sentence for each count, the sentence is void. Id. at ¶ 28. 

{¶11} Samuels asserts that his sentence is void and not subject to res judicata 

because the trial court concluded that his offenses were allied but then improperly 

imposed a separate sentence for each count. We do not agree. 

{¶12} The trial court’s statement that some of the offenses to which Samuels 

pleaded guilty “may be” allied offenses in no way is a finding that they are, in fact, allied 
offenses of similar import. Likewise, the trial judge’s response of “uh huh” after defense 

counsel’s assertion that the kidnapping and attempted murder “could be” allied offenses is 

similarly not a finding that the offenses are allied offenses. Our review of the record 

demonstrates that the trial court made no findings whatsoever that any of the offenses to 

which Samuels pleaded guilty are allied offenses. 

{¶13} Accordingly, pursuant to Williams, Samuels’s sentence is not void, and he 

was required to assert any alleged error regarding allied offenses on direct appeal. He 

did not do so, and his argument that his offenses are allied is therefore barred by 

principles of res judicata. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied his motion to 

correct his sentence. The assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶14} Judgment affirmed. 
[Cite as State v. Samuels, 2018-Ohio-3675.]

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, JUDGE 

MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and 

ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR