Court Opinion

ID: 9908032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 17:08:26.13989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:30.293227
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Ali, 2023-Ohio-4422.]

                                    COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                      COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                  :

                 Plaintiff- Appellee,           :
                                                              No. 112728
                          v.                    :

OSIRIS ALI,                                     :

                 Defendant-Appellant.           :

                                     JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 7, 2023

                 Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                    Case No. CR-05-465969-A

                                           Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Sarah E. Hutnik, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.

                 Osiris Ali, pro se.

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J.:

                  Defendant-appellant Osiris Ali appeals the trial court’s denial of his

motion to vacate void judgment. Because the motion was properly denied on the

basis of res judicata, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
               In 2006, Ali was convicted of multiple sex offenses committed against

two minor children and the trial court imposed a sentence of five concurrent life

sentences plus four years. This court affirmed Ali’s conviction in State v. Ali, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88147, 2007-Ohio-3776, discretionary appeal not accepted, 116

Ohio St.3d 1458, 2007-Ohio-6803, 878 N.E.2d 35, 2007, application for reopening

denied, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88147, 2009-Ohio-1233.

               Since his convictions were affirmed, Ali filed multiple challenges to his

convictions. See State v. Ali, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112285, 2023-Ohio-2587, ¶ 26-

49.1 On April 28, 2023, the trial court denied Ali’s motion to vacate void judgment

entry, filed January 3, 2023. Ali appealed and has assigned one error for our review,

which reads:

       The trial court erred, and to the prejudice of appellant, in denying
       defendant’s motion to vacate void judgment entry where defendant’s
       sentence is void as a matter of law
               Ali argues that his sentence is void because it is an improper sentence

in contravention of State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d

824. The state argues that his motion was properly denied on the basis of res

judicata where the error Ali complains of could have been raised in Ali’s direct

appeal.   “‘Res judicata generally bars a convicted defendant from litigating a

1 This court determined that Ali is a vexatious litigator because he “has continuously taxed

the limited resources of this court by filing actions and motions that are not reasonably
well-grounded in fact or warranted by existing law or by a good faith argument for the
extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” Id. at ¶ 26. However, the instant appeal
was filed before this determination.
postconviction claim that was raised or could have been raised at trial or on direct

appeal.’” State v. Ali, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112285, 2023-Ohio-2587, ¶ 21, quoting

State v. Bethel, 167 Ohio St.3d 362, 2022-Ohio-783, 192 N.E.3d 470, ¶ 17.

             Ali complains that his sentence is void. A sentence is void only if

rendered by a court that lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over either the case or the

defendant. State v. Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285, 2020-Ohio-4784, 162 N.E.3d

776, ¶ 43. Ali does not argue that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, and his claim of

error in sentencing could not be corrected through a postconviction motion. Id.

Further, Ali’s claim of error in his sentence could have been raised in his direct

appeal. As such, the motion to vacate void judgment was properly denied by the

trial court. The sole assignment of error is overruled.

             Judgment affirmed.

      It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_________________________________
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, PRESIDING JUDGE

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., and
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR