[Cite as State v. Poissant, 2014-Ohio-1916.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

MICHAEL R. POISSANT : Case No. 13-CA-55 

 : 

 : 

 Defendant - Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County 

 Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 

 02-CR-321 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 2, 2014 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

GREGG MARX MICHAEL R. POISSANT # 437-989 

Prosecuting Attorney P.O. Box 7010 

 Unit 2-0B 

By: CRYSTAL BENNETT Chillicothe, OH 45601 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

201 S. Broad Street, 4th Fl. 

Lancaster, OH 43130 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-55 2 

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} Appellant Michael R. Poissant appeals a judgment of the Fairfield County 

Common Pleas Court overruling his motion to correct a void sentence. Appellee is the 

State of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} On September 13, 2002, appellant Michael Poissant was indicted by the 

Fairfield County Grand Jury on one count of burglary, one count of kidnapping, one 

count of abduction and two counts of rape of a child under the age of thirteen, by force. 

On November 27, 2002, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant entered pleas of guilty 

to both charges of rape, which were amended to drop the allegations of force or threat 

of force. The remaining charges were dismissed. The matter proceeded to sentencing. 

{¶3} At the sentencing hearing, appellant represented that he was guilty, but 

not in the way the victim made him out to be. He told the court that although he knew 

she was twelve at the time, she did not look or act as young as twelve. He told the 

court that he was guilty of being an idiot in letting the girl do what she wanted to do, as 

she was the one who seduced him. 

{¶4} Appellant was sentenced to seven years incarceration on one count of 

rape and eight years incarceration on the second count of rape, to be served 

consecutively. He appealed the sentence to this Court, arguing that the court failed to 

make the requisite findings to support consecutive sentencing, the record did not 

support the court’s findings concerning consecutive sentencing and the two acts of rape 

were not committed with a separate animus. We overruled the assignments of error 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-55 3 

and affirmed the consecutive sentences. State v. Poissant, 5th Dist. Fairfield App. No. 

03-CA-14, 2003-Ohio-4578. 

{¶5} On September 28, 2007, appellant filed a motion to correct a void 

sentence because the judgment did not include notification regarding post-release 

control. On January 11, 2008, the court held a hearing on the motion pursuant to R.C. 

2929.191. Following the hearing, the court again sentenced appellant to eight years on 

one count and seven years on the second count, to be served consecutively. The court 

notified appellant that post-release control is mandatory in this case for a period of five 

years. The court also found that based on his plea of guilty to two counts of rape, 

appellant is a Tier III sex offender, as defined in Section 2950.01(G) of the Revised 

Code. 

{¶6} Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the corrected sentencing entry. 

Counsel for appellant filed a motion to withdraw accompanied by an Anders brief. See 

Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738 (if appointed appellate counsel believes in 

good faith that the appeal is wholly without merit, then he must withdraw as counsel and 

file a brief outlining all possible appealable issues). We overruled the motion to 

withdraw based on potential assignment of error four, which dealt with the 

constitutionality of the Adam Walsh Act. We reversed the court’s classification of 

appellant as a Tier III sex offender, finding that under the AWA, appellant’s 

reclassification was the responsibility of the Ohio Attorney General because he was 

incarcerated on December 1, 2007. In all other respects we affirmed the judgment of 

the trial court on resentencing. State v. Poissant, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 08-CA-7, 2009-
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-55 4 

Ohio-4235. The trial court filed a corrected entry excising appellant’s classification as a 

Tier III sex offender on August 28, 2009. 

{¶7} On June 3, 2013, appellant filed a motion to correct a void sentence, 

arguing that his sentences were void for failing to include post-release control as a part 

of each individual sentence, and failing to include his classification as a habitual sex 

offender in his sentence. The court found the issues barred by res judicata and 

overruled the motion. Appellant assigns two errors on appeal: 

{¶8} “I. APPELLANT’S SENTENCE IS VOID WHERE THE TRIAL COURT 

FAILED TO INCLUDE POST-RELEASE CONTROL AS PART OF EACH SENTENCE, 

AS REQUIRED BY R.C. 2967.28(B). 

{¶9} “II. APPELLANT’S SENTENCE IS VOID WHERE THE TRIAL COURT 

FAILED TO INCLUDE THE DETERMINATION OF ‘HABITUAL SEX OFFENDER’ IN 

HIS SENTENCE AND IN HIS JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, AS REQUIRED BY R.C. 

2950.09(E).” 

I, II 

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

convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any 

proceeding, except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of 

due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial, 

which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment. State 

v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 671 N.E.2d 233 (1996), syllabus, approving and following 

State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph nine of the 

syllabus. Accordingly, “[t]o survive preclusion by res judicata, a petitioner must produce 
Fairfield County, Case No. 13-CA-55 5 

new evidence that would render the judgment void or voidable and must also show that 

he could not have appealed the claim based upon information contained in the original 

record.” State v. Poissant, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 2005-CA-90, 2006-Ohio-7310, ¶13. 

{¶11} Appellant has previously appealed both his original judgment of conviction 

and sentence and his judgment on resentencing, and was represented by counsel in 

both proceedings. In his motion to correct his sentence, he did not produce new 

evidence that would render the judgment void or voidable, and did not demonstrate that 

he could not have raised his new claims based on information contained in the record 

on his prior appeals to this Court. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding 

appellant’s claims barred by res judicata. 

{¶12} The first and second assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of 

the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. Costs are assessed to appellant. 

By: Baldwin, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Wise, J. concur.