Court Opinion

ID: 9379956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 18:07:29.998537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:16.297525
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Gamble, 2023-Ohio-843.]

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio,                                     :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,               :              No. 22AP-584
                                                                (C.P.C. No. 15CR-566)
v.                                                 :
                                                              (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Cameron S. Gamble                                  :

                 Defendant-Appellant.              :

                                            D E C I S I O N

                                     Rendered on March 16, 2023

                 On brief: G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and
                 Darren M. Burgess, for appellee.

                 On brief: Cameron S. Gamble, pro se.

                  APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
        {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Cameron S. Gamble, appeals from a judgment of the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to vacate post-release control.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
        {¶ 2} In July 2015, Gamble pleaded guilty to having a weapon while under
disability, a violation of 2923.13 and a third-degree felony. The next month, the trial court
sentenced Gamble to three years of community control with intensive supervision. The
trial court notified Gamble, at the sentencing hearing and in writing, what could happen if
he violated the terms of community control, including the imposition of a three-year prison
sentence. In January 2017, the trial court revoked community control and sentenced
No. 22AP-584                                                                               2

Gamble to a three-year prison term.       The trial court’s revocation entry notified Gamble
that he “may receive a period of post-release control of up to 3 years and, if [he] violates
post-release control [his] sentence will be extended administratively in accordance with
State law.” (Jan. 25, 2017 Entry at 2.) Gamble did not appeal from either judgment.
         {¶ 3} In June 2022, Gamble filed a motion to vacate post-release control, which the
trial court denied. He timely appeals from that denial.
II. Assignment of Error
         {¶ 4} Gamble presents the following sole assignment of error for our review:
                The trial court failed to incorporate RC 2967.28 into my journal
                entry, and or to state that “The adult parole authority will
                administer Post release control pursuant to RC 2967.28 upon
                my release, and that the violation of the conditions of prc will
                subject the offender to the consequences set forth and that
                statue”. To validly impose Post release control. And I am not
                the aggrieve party for res judica to apply.

(Sic passim.)
III. Discussion
         {¶ 5} Considering the substance of the trial court judgment from which Gamble
has appealed, we construe his sole assignment of error as generally alleging the trial court
erred in denying his motion to vacate post-release control. This assignment of error lacks
merit.
         {¶ 6} Gamble’s postconviction motion was barred by res judicata. “[A]ny issue that
could have been raised on direct appeal and was not is res judicata and not subject to review
in subsequent proceedings.” State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, ¶ 16,
citing State v. Hutton, 100 Ohio St.3d 176, 2003-Ohio-5607, ¶ 37. The res judicata doctrine
does not, however, preclude a collateral challenge to a void judgment. State v. Harper, 160
Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, ¶ 18. But, Gamble did not collaterally challenge a void
judgment.
         {¶ 7} In Harper, the Supreme Court of Ohio “reevaluate[d] the basic premise of
[its] void-sentence jurisprudence” and clarified this unsettled area of law with this guiding
principle: “A sentence is void when a sentencing court lacks jurisdiction over the subject-
matter of the case or personal jurisdiction over the accused.” Id. at ¶ 34, 42. See State v.
No. 22AP-584                                                                                3

Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285, 2020-Ohio-4784, ¶ 27 (noting that the above-quoted
principle in Harper is not limited to cases involving the imposition of post-release control).
“ ‘[A] common pleas court has subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases.’ ” Harper at
¶ 25, quoting Smith v. Sheldon, 157 Ohio St.3d 1, 2019-Ohio-1677, ¶ 8. And, “[i]n a criminal
matter, the court acquires jurisdiction over a person by lawfully issued process, followed by
the arrest and arraignment of the accused and his plea to the charge.” Henderson at ¶ 36,
citing Tari v. State, 117 Ohio St. 481 (1927). Thus, when the sentencing court has
jurisdiction to act, sentencing errors “render the sentence voidable, not void, and the
sentence may be set aside if successfully challenged on direct appeal.” Harper at ¶ 42.
       {¶ 8} Here, the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over this case and
personal jurisdiction over Gamble. This is a felony case, process was lawfully issued,
Gamble was arrested and arraigned, and he entered a plea. Consequently, any sentencing
error committed by the trial court relating to post-release control would have made the
judgment voidable, not void. Id. at ¶ 43. Accordingly, Gamble could have raised this issue
in a direct appeal but he did not and, therefore, his motion to vacate is barred by res
judicata.
       {¶ 9} Because the trial court did not err in denying Gamble’s motion to vacate, we
overrule his sole assignment of error.
IV. Disposition
       {¶ 10} Having overruled Gamble’s sole assignment of error, we affirm the judgment
of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
                                                                        Judgment affirmed.
                          MENTEL and EDELSTEIN, JJ., concur.