[Cite as State v. Andrews , 2020-Ohio-605.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SANDUSKY COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. S-19-049 Appellee Trial Court No. 18 CR 639

v. Allan D. Andrews DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: February 21, 2020

* * * * * Joseph H. Gerber, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee

. Allan D. Andrews, pro se.

* * * * * OSOWIK, J. {¶ 1} This is an accelerated, pro se appeal from a November 8, 2019 j udgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas, denying appellant’s pro se motion to vacate sentence arising from appellant’s December 21, 2018 volu ntary plea agreement.2. {¶ 2} Pursuant to the joint plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to three counts of aggravated trafficking in drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.03, felonies of the third degree. In exchange, the three additional counts of aggravated traffick ing in drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.03, felonies of the second degree, were dismissed. I n addition, the parties presented joint, written sentencing recommendations to the tria l court. {¶ 3} On December 21, 2018, the trial court accepted and adopted the joint sentencing recommendation of the parties. Accordingly, appella nt was sentenced to a seven-year term of incarceration. The sentence did not deviate from any of the agreedupon terms, although the parties had acknowledged that the sent encing recommendations were not binding upon the trial court. No direct appeal was ta ken in this case. {¶ 4} On November 6, 2019, nearly a year after appellant’s App.R. 4(A ) deadline for direct appeal had expired, appellant filed a motion to vaca te the above-described, jointly negotiated and adopted by the trial court, sentence. {¶ 5} On November 8, 2019, appellant’s motion was denied on a res jud icata basis. This appeal ensued. For the reasons set forth below, t his court affirms the judgment of the trial court. {¶ 6} Appellant, Allan Andrews, sets forth the following assignment o f error: One: The trial [c]ourt erred in all bases of its denial of de fendant[’]s

motion to vacate sentence. {¶ 7} In the sole assignment of error, appellant asserts that the tri al court erred in the denial of appellant’s pro se motion to vacate the sentence. We do not concur.3. {¶ 8} App.R. 4(A) establishes that, “A party shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of the later of the entry of judgmen t or order appealed.” As applied to the instant case, an appeal of this case needed to h ave been filed on or before January 20, 2019. The subject notice of appeal was filed on No vember 22, 2019, more than ten months after the expiration of the filing deadline. {¶ 9} R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) establishes that, “A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by sentencing judge .” (Emphasis added). {¶ 10} The record reflects that the underlying felony sentence was aut horized by law, was jointly recommended by the parties, and was adopted an d imposed by the sentencing judge. As such, the instant case is not subject to further felony sentence review pursuant to the plain language of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). {¶ 11} In addition to the above-described statutory prohibition of thi s appeal, State v. Barfield , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-06-1262/1263, 2007-Ohio-1037, unequivoc ally held at ¶ 6, “[T]he principles of res judicata may be applied to bar fu rther litigation in a criminal case of issues which were raised, or could have been raised, pr eviously in an appeal. We note also that the res judicata bar applies even where * * * no direct appeal was taken .” (Emphasis added). {¶ 12} Similarly, as the Ohio Supreme Court held in State v. Fischer , 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332, at ¶ 34, “The [law of the case] doctrine4. retains its vitality in Ohio * * * [I]t precludes a litigant fr om attempting to rely on arguments which were fully pursued, or available to be pursued, on a first appeal * * * [N]ew arguments are subject to issue preclusion, and are barred .” {¶ 13} Moreover, as stated, appellant failed to file a direct appeal o f the trial court’s judgment of conviction imposing a seven-year sentence. Because appellant failed to file a direct appeal, res judicata bars appellant from raisi ng any issue in a subsequent appeal or trial court proceeding, that could have been raised o n direct appeal. As such, any issue raised in the November 6, 2019 motion to vacate his c onviction, is barred by res judicata since the issues raised in the November 6 motion could have been raised on direct appeal. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did n ot err in finding that the issues raised in appellant’s motion to vacate his sentence were barred by res judicata. {¶ 14} We have reviewed and considered this matter. We find that this appeal is prohibited by R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), App.R. 4(A) and res judicata. Accordingly, we find this matter to be without merit and appellant’s sole assignmentof error is found not welltaken. {¶ 15} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Sandusky County C ourt of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay t he costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 4.

Judgment affirmed.5. State v . Andrews C .A. No. S-19-049

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pur suant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Arlene Singer, J. _________________

______________ JUDGE Thomas J. Osowik, J.

_______________________________ Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE CONCUR.

_______________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.