[Cite as State v. Morris , 2021-Ohio-2226.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO Appellee

v. DAVID C. MORRIS Appellant C.A. No. 29809

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 87 04 0423(A)

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: June 30, 2021

CARR, Judge {¶1} Defendant-Appellant David C. Morri s appeals, pro se, an order o f the Summit County Court of Common Pleas denying his “Motion for Relief fro m Judg[ment] Civil Rule 60(B) Motion[.]”

I. {¶2} This Court has previously summarized the lengthy history of thi s matter in a prior appeal. State v. Morris , 9th Dist. Summit No. 29419, 2019-Ohio-5404. Relevant to this appeal, “[o]n March 22, 2019, [] Morris filed a ‘Motion for De Novo Res entencing to Correct Void Sentence,’ in which he argued that his sentence[] for aggravate d murder [was] void because the trial court did not have the authority to sentence him to priso n ‘for the remainder of his natural life.’ (Emphasis omitted.) The trial court denied his motion, and [] Morris [] appeal[ed].” Id. at ¶

2.2

{¶3} This Court concluded “that the trial court could not consider h is untimely and successive petition * * *.” Id. at ¶ 8. Further, with respect to Morris’ claim that his senten ce for aggravated murder was void, this Court noted that “[t]he trial court had jurisdiction over [] Morris’ criminal case, and when a sentencing Court has jurisdiction and statutory authority to act, errors in sentencing are voidable.” Id. at ¶ 9. This Court affirmed t he trial court’s judgment. Id. at ¶ 1. {¶4} In June 2020, Morris filed a “Motion for Relief from Judg[ment] Civil Rule 60(B) Motion[.]” Morris again challenge d the trial court’s use of th e phrase “the remainder of his natural life” in his 1987 sentencing entr y, arguing it rendered his sen tence void. The trial court recast Morris’ motion as an untimely p etition for post-conviction reli ef and denied the motion. Morris has appealed, raising a single a ssignment of error for our revi ew.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM VOID SENTENCE. {¶5} Morris argues in his sole assignm ent of error that the trial co urt erred in its 1987 sentencing entry by using the phrase “the remainder of his natu ral life[,]” and, instead, he should

have received a sentence that in cluded parole eligibility after serving 20 years in prison. See former R.C. 2903.01(C); former R.C. 2929.02; former R.C. 2929.0 3. Morris asserts that this error

renders his sentence void. {¶6} As mentioned above, Morris has raised this issue before. See Morris , 2019-Ohio5404, ¶ 2. Morris’ sole assignment of error is overruled for t he reasons stated in this Court’s opinion resolving Morris’ prior appeal on the same issue. See id. at ¶ 4-9. Like the previous motion, Morris’ current motion is properly construed as an unti mely and successive petition for post-conviction relief. See id. at ¶ 4-8. In addition, Morris has not demonstrated that his s entence3

is void. See id. at ¶ 9; see also State v. Henderson , 161 Ohio St.3d 285, 2020-Ohio-4784, ¶ 43 (“A judgment or sentence is void onl y if it is rendered by a court that lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or personal jurisdiction over the defendant. If the court has jurisdiction over the case and the person, any sentence based on an error in the court’s e xercise of that jurisdiction is

voidable. Neither the state nor the defendant can challenge th e voidable sentence through a postconviction motion.”); State v. Brown , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 14 MA 37, 2014-Ohio-5832, ¶ 22-37. Notably, even if this Court were able to address the me rits of his argument there is law which supports that his 1987 sent encing entry would be read to impose parole eligibility after twenty years. See Brown at ¶ 34-37; see also former R.C. 2903.01(C); former R.C. 2929.02;

former R.C. 2929.03. {¶7} Morris’ assignment of error is overruled.

III. {¶8} The judgment of the Summit Count y Court of Comm on Pleas is affi rmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, direc ting the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State o f Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof , this document shall consti tute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file sta mped by the Clerk of the Cour t of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to4

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to m ake a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

DONNA J. CARR FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, P. J. SUTTON, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES: DAVID C. MORRIS, pro se, Appellant. SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuti ng Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CO RGAN, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.