[Cite as State v. Ball, 2014-Ohio-2662.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 No. 13AP-1030 

v. : (C.P.C. No. 06CR-7508)

Donovon L. Ball, : (ACCELERATED CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on June 19, 2014 

 

Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Sheryl L. Prichard, 

for appellee. 

Donovon L. Ball, pro se. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

KLATT, J. 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Donovon L. Ball, appeals from a judgment of the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to correct sentence. For the 

following reasons, we affirm that judgment. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background 

{¶ 2} In 2006, appellant was indicted with three counts of rape and gross sexual 

imposition. After a bench trial, the trial court found appellant guilty of one count of rape 

and not guilty of the remaining counts. The trial court sentenced him accordingly. 

Appellant appealed his conviction to this court and only argued that the trial court erred 

by admitting certain testimony. We disagreed and affirmed appellant's conviction. State 

v. Ball, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-818, 2008-Ohio-2648. 
No. 13AP-1030 2 

{¶ 3} On April 11, 2013, appellant filed a motion to correct sentence. In the 

motion, he argued that the trial court, at sentencing, failed to: (1) properly impose postrelease control, (2) make required findings to impose greater than the minimum sentence, 

(3) consider sentencing factors, and (4) advise him of his sexual registration duties. The 

trial court denied appellant's motion, concluding that the sentencing court properly 

sentenced him and, to the extent appellant wanted minimum sentences, the trial court 

lacked authority to reconsider a final judgment. 

II. Appellant's Appeal 

{¶ 4} Appellant appeals from that decision and assigns the following errors: 

[1.] Trial Court abused its discretion by entering an incorrect 

journal entry. 

[2.] Trial Court failed to properly impose Post-Release 

Control pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2967.28. 

[3.] Trial Court erred by not properly considering the 

necessary factors pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2929.11 and 

2929.12. 

[4.] Trial Court failed to properly impose sanctions pursuant 

to Ohio Revised Code 2950 and 2929.13(I). 

A. Res Judicata

{¶ 5} Appellant's arguments in his first,1 third, and fourth assignments of error 

are all barred by res judicata. The doctrine of 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, ¶ 59, citing 

State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus. Appellant's 

claims in these assignments of error all relate back to his sentencing in 2007 and could 

have been raised in his direct appeal of his original conviction. State v. Cunningham, 

10th Dist. No. 11AP-989, 2012-Ohio-2782, ¶ 6, 8 (claims concerning sexual predator 

classification and sentencing issues all barred by res judicata). Because appellant could

 

1 The "incorrect journal entry" appellant refers to is the entry of conviction and sentence arising from his 

conviction in 2007. 
No. 13AP-1030 3 

have but did not raise these arguments in that appeal, res judicata bars him from raising 

them in this appeal. State v. Atkinson, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-297, 2013-Ohio-4887, ¶ 7-8. 

{¶ 6} Accordingly, we overrule appellant's first, third, and fourth assignments of 

error. 

B. Failure to Impose Post-Release Control 

{¶ 7} Appellant argues in his second assignment of error that his sentence is void 

because the trial court failed to properly impose post-release control ("PRC"). The 

improper imposition of PRC may render at least that portion of a sentence void. State v. 

Myers, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-909, 2012-Ohio-2733, ¶ 8, citing State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio 

St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, syllabus. Therefore, res judicata would not bar consideration 

of this assignment of error. Id. However, upon a review of appellant's sentencing, we 

conclude that the trial court properly imposed PRC. 

{¶ 8} Appellant was found guilty of a first-degree felony offense and sentenced to 

prison. Accordingly, the trial court had to notify him of PRC at the sentencing hearing 

and in the court's sentencing entry. State v. Holloman, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-454, 2011-

Ohio-6138, ¶ 7, citing State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, ¶ 22. 

Pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) and (e), the trial court had to notify him at the 

sentencing hearing that he would be on PRC after his release and the consequences for 

violations of PRC. PRC sanctions are also to be included in the judgment entry 

journalized by the court. State v. Boone, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-1054, 2012-Ohio-3653, ¶ 13. 

{¶ 9} Appellant argues that the trial court did not orally advise him of the 

consequences of violating PRC or the length of his term of PRC. The lack of an oral 

advisement by itself does not render the trial court's notification insufficient. State v. 

Easley, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-505, 2011-Ohio-2412, ¶ 14-19. Indeed, this court has 

repeatedly found that a trial court meets its statutory obligations to notify a defendant of 

PRC "when its oral and written notifications, taken as a whole, properly informed the 

defendant of post-release control." Boone at ¶ 18; State v. Townsend, 10th Dist. No. 

10AP-983, 2011-Ohio-5056, ¶ 7. Thus, we must consider the totality of the circumstances 

to determine whether the trial court properly notified appellant of PRC. State v. 

Williams, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-1135, 2011-Ohio-6231, ¶ 23. 
No. 13AP-1030 4 

{¶ 10} At his sentencing, the trial court advised appellant that "[o]nce released 

from prison, you will be subject to what's called post-release control. What that means is 

that the Adult Parole Authority will have supervision over you. They will place certain 

restrictions on what you can and cannot do. If you violate these restrictions, say commit a 

new crime, they could actually send you back to prison." (Tr. 5-6.) In its entry of 

conviction and sentence, the trial court notified appellant "that he will, at the option of the 

Adult Parole Authority, receive a period of post-release control of 5 years and, if he 

violates post-release control his sentence will be extended administratively in accordance 

with State law." In another document, entitled "Notice (Prison Imposed)," the trial court 

also notified appellant that he was subject to a period of post-release control for 5 years 

after his release from prison and of the possible consequences should he violate the terms 

of his post-release control. Appellant signed that document. 

{¶ 11} Based on all of the above, we conclude that the trial court properly notified 

appellant of PRC. Easley. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's second assignment of 

error. 

III. Conclusion 

{¶ 12} Having overruled appellant's four assignments of error, we affirm the 

judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 

Judgment affirmed.

CONNOR and DORRIAN, JJ., concur.