Court Opinion

ID: 9916767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 17:07:11.35+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:58.376823
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Johnson, 2024-Ohio-44.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                     RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO,                               :       JUDGES:
                                             :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
        Plaintiff - Appellee                 :       Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
                                             :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-                                         :
                                             :
CHARLES JOHNSON,                             :       Case No. 2023 CA 0035
                                             :
        Defendant - Appellant                :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                             Appeal from the Richland County
                                                     Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
                                                     2015-CR-432

JUDGMENT:                                            Vacated and Remanded

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                    January 9, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                               For Defendant-Appellant

JODIE SCHUMACHER                                     CHARLES JOHNSON, Pro Se
Prosecuting Attorney                                 #673-390
Richland County, Ohio                                P.O. Box 1812
                                                     Marion, Ohio 43302
By: MARTIN I. NEWMAN
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
38 South Park Street
Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0035                                                2

Baldwin, J.

       {¶1}     The appellant, Charles Johnson, appeals the ruling made by the trial court

on May 31, 2023. The appellee is the State of Ohio.

                      STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

       {¶2}     On September 11, 2015, the appellant was convicted by a jury of felonious

assault and aggravated burglary.

       {¶3}     On September 16, 2015, the trial court sentenced the appellant to eight

years for the felonious assault and six years for the aggravated burglary to be served

consecutively. The trial court also ordered the appellant to pay restitution of $6,140.00.

       {¶4}     On October 14, 2015, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal arguing

ineffective assistance of counsel.

       {¶5}     On November 15, 2015, the trial court amended its sentence ordering the

appellant to pay restitution totaling $15,287.74.

       {¶6}     On May 13, 2016, this Court overruled the appellant’s sole assignment of

error of ineffective assistance of counsel.

       {¶7}     On March 16, 2020, the appellant filed a pro se motion to correct the

November 15, 2015 sentencing entry.

       {¶8}     On March 24, 2020, the appellee filed a response conceding that the

appellant only owed $6,140.00 of restitution.

       {¶9}     On January 28, 2021, the trial court held a resentencing hearing. At the

hearing, the trial court continued the appellant’s prison sentence but altered the restitution

to $6,140.00.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0035                                             3

      {¶10} On February 2, 2021, the appellant filed a second Notice of Appeal

regarding the resentencing.

      {¶11} On January 25, 2022, this Court dismissed the appeal as the amended

sentence was placed on the record when the trial court lacked jurisdiction and reinstated

the September 16, 2015 sentence.

      {¶12} On November 16, 2022, the appellant filed a Motion to Vacate Restitution,

which was denied by the trial court on December 6, 2022.

      {¶13} On January 5, 2023, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on the trial court’s

denial of Appellant’s Motion to Vacate Restitution. While this appeal was pending the

appellant filed another motion in the trial court to correct his sentence on May 15, 2023.

The trial court denied this motion on May 31, 2023.

      {¶14} On June 7, 2023, this Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s

Motion to Vacate Restitution.

      {¶15} On June 30, 2023, the appellant filed a fourth Notice of Appeal, this time

appealing the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s Motion to Correct Sentence setting forth

the following assignments of error:

      {¶16} “I. APPELLANT’S SENTENCE IS VOID.”

      {¶17} “II. SENTENCE IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY

THE RECORD.”

                                 JURISDICTION

      {¶18} As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether the trial court had

jurisdiction to issue the May 31, 2023 judgment entry denying Appellant’s Motion to

Correct Sentence.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0035                                                4

       {¶19} “With few exceptions, a trial court loses jurisdiction over a case once a

notice of appeal is filed.” Middleton v. Luna’s Restaurant & Deli, L.L.C., 5th Dist. Stark

No. 2011-CA-00181, 2012-Ohio-348, ¶11. A trial court’s jurisdiction does not extend to

matters inconsistent with the appellate court’s jurisdiction to review, reverse, modify, or

affirm the judgment. State ex rel. Rock v. School Employees Retirement Board, 96 Ohio

St.3d 206, 2002-Ohio-3957, 772 N.E.2d 1197, ¶8 (per curiam).

       {¶20} When the May 31, 2023 judgment entry was issued, the case was before

the court of appeals on the issue of vacating restitution. Therefore, we find the trial court

lacked jurisdiction to proceed on the issue to correct the appellant’s sentence.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment in question and remand to the trial court to consider

Appellant’s Motion to Correct Sentence in light of the fact this Court reinstated the original

September 16, 2015 sentence on January 25, 2022.

       {¶21} Based upon our determination that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, we

decline to address the first and second Assignments of Error.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0035                                        5

                                   CONCLUSION

       {¶22} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of

Richland County, Ohio, is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

By: Baldwin, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

Delaney, J. concur.