Court Opinion

ID: 9882937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:22:09.19533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:58.539660
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Tutt, 2023-Ohio-2819.]

                                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                             TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                           PREBLE COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO,                                  :

        Appellee,                                :         CASE NO. CA2022-04-005
                                                                    CA2022-08-015
                                                 :
     - vs -                                                      OPINION
                                                 :                8/14/2023

 DEVIN MICHAEL TUTT,                             :

        Appellant.                               :

       CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM PREBLE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                           Case No. 19 CR 13095

Repper-Pagan Law, Ltd., and Christopher J. Pagan for appellant.

David A. Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and Andrea K. Boyd, Assistant Attorney General, for
appellee.

        PIPER, J.

        {¶ 1} On September 3, 2019, Devin Tutt pled guilty to two counts of rape, both

felonies of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2). The trial court sentenced Tutt

to consecutive prison terms for an aggregate, indefinite prison sentence of 22 to 27.5 years.

Tutt appealed and argued that he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because

"he did not sign a written waiver indicating that he understood the impact of the new

indeterminate sentencing law prior to entering his guilty plea." On January 19, 2021, this
                                                                                   Preble CA2022-04-005
                                                                                   ______CA2022-08-015

court issued a decision affirming Tutt's convictions. State v. Tutt, 12th Dist. Preble No.

CA2020-02-002, 2021-Ohio-96.1

        {¶ 2} On April 19, 2021, Tutt sought to reopen his appeal based on ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel. Tutt argued his appellate counsel failed to raise an issue

regarding the trial court's failure to comply with the R.C. 2929.12(B)(2)(c) Reagan Tokes

notifications.     This court granted the application for reopening and sustained Tutt's

assignment of error. State v. Tutt, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2020-02-002 (Judgment Entry

Reopening Appeal and Remanding to Trial Court) (July 15, 2021). We remanded the case

for a limited purpose "to allow the trial court to give the required R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)

notifications." Our entry specifically stated that this court's order "shall not affect the validity

of Tutt's convictions or any other aspect of his sentence." Id.

        {¶ 3} On November 3, 2021, the trial court held a hearing. During the hearing, the

trial court provided Tutt with the mandatory Reagan Tokes notifications. Afterwards, Tutt's

counsel indicated that there was nothing further with regard to the advisement. However,

Tutt's counsel then stated that he wished to preserve objections to the constitutionality of

the Reagan Tokes Act and that he did not believe that consecutive sentences were

appropriate in this case.

        {¶ 4} On March 10, 2022, the trial court entered a "Notice Regarding the Reagan

Tokes Entry" indicating it had provided Tutt with the required notifications. On July 15,

2022, Tutt filed a motion requesting the trial court issue a full sentencing entry that complied

with Crim.R. 32(C).2 On August 10, 2022, the trial court granted Tutt's motion for an all-

1. This court noted, however, that Tutt did not move to withdraw his plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1.
Nevertheless, this court considered Tutt's suggestion that his plea was not knowingly or voluntarily entered.

2. Crim. R. 32(C) provides that a "judgment of conviction shall set forth the fact of conviction and the
sentence." In his motion, Tutt attached a copy of an entry issued by this court in which the magistrate indicated

                                                     -2-
                                                                                   Preble CA2022-04-005
                                                                                   ______CA2022-08-015

encompassing entry and incorporated the Crim.R. 32(C) elements in a final judgment entry

reflecting that the Reagan Tokes notifications had been provided. 3 Tutt now appeals,

raising two assignments of error for review.

        {¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1:

        {¶ 6} CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE CONTRARY TO LAW.

        {¶ 7} Assignment of Error No. 2:

        {¶ 8} THE REAGAN TOKES ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

        {¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, Tutt argues the trial court erred when it

imposed consecutive sentences. Tutt's second assignment of error alleges the Reagan

Tokes Law is unconstitutional. Critically, both assignments of error are beyond the scope

of this court's limited remand. See State v. Tomlinson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27181, 2014-

Ohio-5019, ¶ 5.

        {¶ 10} Tutt directly appealed his conviction and this court affirmed.                        We later

permitted the reopening of the appeal because the trial court failed to comply with the

Reagan Tokes notifications and remanded to the trial court for that limited purpose. After

receiving the notification pursuant to our remand, Tutt's counsel attempted to raise new

issues unrelated to the Reagan Tokes notifications. However, the scope of an appeal after

that it "is not clear" if a comprehensive final sentencing entry was required but that an "all-encompassing
sentencing entry would not interfere with this court's ability to consider whether the trial court complied with
the remand instructions." The magistrate noted that a trial court retains jurisdiction not inconsistent with a
reviewing court's jurisdiction to reverse, affirm, or modify the judgment appealed, citing Daloia v. Franciscan
Health Service, 79 Ohio St.3d 98, 1997-Ohio-402.

3. Although the trial court referred to its judgment entry as being done "nunc pro tunc," it was not technically
a nunc pro tunc entry (meaning "now for then"). A nunc pro tunc entry is used retrospectively to correct clerical
errors in a judgment so that the judgment reflects that which the court intended. Darden v. Fambrough, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99730, 2013-Ohio-5583, ¶ 6. In this case, there was no clerical error. Rather, we found
it necessary to remand the case for Tutt to receive the Reagan Tokes notifications. The trial court's August
10, 2022 entry is an entry supplying the required notifications pursuant to this court's limited remand. This
technical clarification does not otherwise impact the validity of the proceedings below.

                                                     -3-
                                                                       Preble CA2022-04-005
                                                                       ______CA2022-08-015

receiving the notifications is limited to issues that arise during the notification hearing. See

State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 2011-Ohio-2669, ¶ 30. A trial court's subsequent

judgment entry cannot be used as a vehicle to reopen all other aspects of a case. An

appellant may only challenge issues on appeal that arise from a hearing that took place

upon remand. Wilson at ¶ 33; State v. Jackson, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-08-154,

2012-Ohio-993, ¶ 11; State v. Stubbs, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-19-048, 2020-Ohio-4536,

¶ 20; State v. McIntyre, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27670, 2016-Ohio-93, ¶ 28; State v. Carter,

3d Dist. Allen No. 1-11-36, 2011-Ohio-6104, ¶ 13.

       {¶ 11} In such circumstances, res judicata remains applicable because a defendant

is not entitled to a "second bite at the apple." Jackson at ¶ 8; State v. Bonnell, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 96368, 2011-Ohio-5837, ¶ 16. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final

judgment of conviction bars the convicted defendant 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. Saxon,

109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, ¶ 16-17.             As the Ohio Supreme Court has

emphasized:

              [P]ublic policy dictates that there be an end of litigation; that
              those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the result
              of the contest, and that matters once tried shall be considered
              forever settled as between the parties. * * * We have stressed
              that [the] doctrine of res judicata is not a mere matter of practice
              or procedure inherited from a more technical time than ours. It
              is a rule of fundamental and substantial justice, of public policy
              and of private peace, which should be cordially regarded and
              enforced by the courts.

State v. Griffin, 138 Ohio St.3d 108, 2013-Ohio-5481, ¶ 52 (internal quotations removed).

       {¶ 12} Tutt's hearing upon remand was limited to the advisement of the mandatory

                                             -4-
                                                                               Preble CA2022-04-005
                                                                               ______CA2022-08-015

Reagan Tokes notifications. The new arguments that Tutt now raises could have and

should have been raised earlier.4 In his direct appeal, Tutt was aware that he had been

sentenced to consecutive prison terms. He also could have contested the constitutionality

of his Reagan Tokes indefinite sentence.5 Tutt was not deprived of the opportunity to

appeal his conviction and sentence. This court exercised its jurisdiction over his direct

appeal and affirmed. Tutt, 2021-Ohio-96 at ¶ 19. Nothing about this court's limited remand

altered the validity of Tutt's convictions or any other aspect of his sentence. It did not open

the door for appellant to attack unrelated matters. Jackson, 2012-Ohio-993 at ¶ 10. Stated

otherwise, Tutt was not entitled to be sentenced anew. State v. Suber, 12th Dist. Butler No.

CA2020-09-099, 2021-Ohio-2291, ¶ 18; State v. Pope, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2021-05-

057, 2022-Ohio-426, ¶ 23; State v. Hodgkin, 12th Dist. No. CA2020-08-048, 2021-Ohio-

1353.

        {¶ 13} Accordingly, we find res judicata plainly bars the new issues that Tutt has

raised in this appeal. The assignments of error that Tutt raises could have been litigated in

his direct appeal and are outside the scope of this court's limited remand. As a result, Tutt's

two assignments of error are overruled.

        {¶ 14} Judgment affirmed.

        S. POWELL, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.

4. Tutt also contends that the state "forfeited" any res judicata defense because it failed to object to the
unrelated issues he attempted to inject into the limited hearing. However, courts are permitted to determine
when an issue raised is barred by application of res judicata. State v. Blankenburg, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2012-04-088, 2012-Ohio-6175, ¶ 6, fn. 2; State v. Madden, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-172, 2008-Ohio-
2653, ¶ 7.

5. We also note that the supreme court has recently issued a decision finding the Reagan Tokes Law is
constitutional. State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535.

                                                   -5-