[Cite as State v. Champada, 2017-Ohio-5679.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 FULTON COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. F-17-001 

 

 Appellee Trial Court No. 14CR000029 

v. 

Pacio P. Champada DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: June 29, 2017 

* * * * * 

 Scott A. Haselman, Fulton County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

 Pacia P. Champada, pro se. 

* * * * * 

 

OSOWIK, J. 

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a December 13, 2016 judgement of the Fulton County 

Court of Common Pleas, which denied appellant’s December 8, 2016 post-appeal pro se 

motion to correct. On March 18, 2014, Pacio Champada (“appellant”), was indicted on 

one count of burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), a felony of the third degree, 

one count of grand theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a felony of the third degree, 
2.

one count of theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a felony of the fifth degree and, 

one count of having weapons under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a 

felony of the third degree. Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted on all counts. 

Appellant was sentenced to a total term of incarceration of 47 months. For the reasons 

set forth below, this court affirms the judgment of the trial court. 

{¶ 2} Appellant sets forth the following assignment of error: 

1. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR, AND 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED [SIC] IN DENYING APPELLANT MR. 

CHAMPADA[‘S] MOTION TO CORRECT JUDGEMENT[,] ENTRY 

SENTENCE AND CONVICTION [OF] THE CHARGE[D] OFFENSE OF 

R.C.2913.02(A)(1) GRAND THEFT AND R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) THEFT IN 

VIOLATION OF CRIM.R.52(B) PLAIN ERROR, AND CRIM.R.32(C) 

SENTENCE A VIOLATION OF APPELLANT MR CHAMPADA[‘s] 5TH, 

6TH, 14TH, AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND 

SECTION 10 AND 16 ARTICLE 1 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION 

AND R.C. 2945.75(A)(2) STATE VS. PELFREY. 

{¶ 3} At the outset, we note that appellant previously filed a direct appeal, which 

was decided by this court in State v. Champada, 6th Dist. Fulton No. F-14-006, 2016-

Ohio-7291. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed on direct appeal. Given that 

this case was previously appealed to this court, we will not fully restate the facts and 

procedural history. We will confine our current recitation to those facts directly relevant 

to the limited scope of the instant matter. 
3.

{¶ 4} The following undisputed facts are relevant to the current appeal. On 

November 10, 2013, the police were called to a home in Delta, Ohio in response to a 

burglary. The homeowner had just returned from a vacation in Tennessee. The 

homeowner fully locked and secured his home prior to departing on vacation. 

Unfortunately, upon returning from vacation, he discovered that his home had been 

burglarized and was in a state of disarray. The homeowner conveyed, “[T]he door jamb 

surrounding the front door was broken [,] * * * [S]everal items were missing from the 

home, including a television, gift cards, money, and [his] gun cabinet.” Id. at ¶ 4. 

{¶ 5} Five firearms, two hunting knives, and several boxes of ammunition were 

stolen from a gun cabinet during the burglary. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, 

appellant’s co-defendant revealed that he had committed the underlying crimes along 

with appellant. 

{¶ 6} Subsequent to the unsuccessful direct appeal of this matter, appellant filed a 

pro se motion to correct the judgment entry. In support, appellant cited State v. Pelfrey, 

112 Ohio St.3d 422, 2007-Ohio-256, 860 N.E.2d 735, to argue that there was a reversible 

error in the indictment, jury verdict forms, and judgment entry. 

{¶ 7} Appellant now makes post hoc claims that those documents were flawed 

because the documents state that appellant was charged with theft, in violation of R.C. 

2913.02(A)(1), and grand theft, both in violation of the same statute. Appellant now 

argues that this should be construed as a fatal error because, “[T]he charges do not carry 

the same elements, therefore, they cannot have the same statute numbers.” (Appellant’s 

Motion to Correct Judgment Entry – Memorandum, p.1). We do not concur. 
4.

{¶ 8} Our resolution of this matter is governed by the doctrine of res judicata. 

“The doctrine of res judicata bars any attempt to raise an issue in a subsequent motion 

that could have been raised on direct appeal and was not.” State v. Kajfasz, 6th Dist. 

Lucas No. L-04-1004, 2004-Ohio-5243, ¶ 6. Appellant had the opportunity to bring these 

alleged defects to the court’s attention on direct appeal and failed to do so. As such, the 

current, untimely assertion in connection to the form of the charges are barred by res 

judicata as the matter could have been raised on direct appeal but was not raised, and as a 

result, the issue was waived. 

{¶ 9} However, even assuming arguendo that res judicata did not preclude the 

instant matter, appellant’s current claims are nevertheless without merit. Appellant was 

convicted of one count of theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) for the unlawful 

taking of personal property, and one count of grand theft, in violation of the same statute, 

for the unlawful taking of the various firearms that were inside the stolen gun cabinet. 

{¶ 10} Appellee maintains that the relevant counts of the indictment properly 

comport with R.C. 2913.02(A)(1). We concur. R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) provides in relevant 

part: 

 No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or 

services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or 

services in any of the following ways *** Without the consent of the owner 

or person authorized to give consent. 

{¶ 11} The pertinent distinction between theft and grand theft is that theft includes 

the stealing of personal property between $1,000.00 and $7,500.00, and grand theft 
5.

involves the stealing of a firearm. However, both charges are clearly encompassed by the 

express language of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1). The record reflects no fatal defect in the 

judgment entry, indictment, or the relevant jury verdict forms. Wherefore, we find 

appellant’s assignment of error to be not well-taken. 

{¶ 12} On consideration whereof, the judgement of the Fulton County Court of 

Common Pleas is hereby affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay costs of this appeal 

pursuant to App.R.24. 

Judgment affirmed. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Thomas J. Osowik, J. 

_______________________________ 

Christine E. Mayle, J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

_______________________________ 

JUDGE 

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of 

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported 

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: 

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.