Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum
from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
Plaintiff-Appellee D. MICHAEL HADDOX, Prosecuting Attorney,
By: GERALD V. ANDERSON II, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney.
Defendant-Appellant RICHARD KING, pro se
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
Hon. Earle E. Wise, J.
Appellant Richard King appeals a judgment of the Muskingum
County Common Pleas Court overruling his motion to
resentence. Appellee is the State of Ohio.
OF THE FACTS AND CASE
On November 10, 2004, the Muskingum County Grand Jury
indicted appellant on sixty-two counts of pandering obscenity
involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(1) and
(5). The charges were felonies of the second and fourth
degrees. A jury trial commenced on January 25, 2005. The jury
found appellant guilty of all of the charges except one,
which was dismissed. As memorialized in an entry filed on
March 7, 2005, the trial court sentenced appellant to an
aggregate term of thirty-six and one-half years in prison and
classified him as a sexual predator/habitual sexual offender.
Appellant filed an appeal. Pursuant to an Opinion filed on
January 19, 2006, this Court affirmed appellant's
convictions, but remanded the matter to the trial court to
comply with the mandates of R.C. 2929.14(E)(4). State v.
King, 5th Dist. Muskingum App. No. CT05-0017,
Upon remand, the trial court resentenced appellant to the
same sentence as memorialized in an entry filed on March 8,
2006. Appellant filed an appeal. This Court affirmed the
resentencing. State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum
App. No. CT06-0020, 2006-Ohio-6566.
On October 20, 2005, August 15, 2006, October 8, 2008, March
13, 2009, September 15, 2009, November 2, 2010, and July 14,
2011, appellant filed motions/petitions for postconviction
relief on several issues including resentencing, evidentiary
issues, ineffective assistance of counsel, and request for
new trial. The trial court denied the motions/petitions and
appellant filed appeals. This Court affirmed the trial
court's decisions. State v. King, 5th Dist.
Muskingum No. CT2006-0021, 2007-Ohio-2810; State v.
King, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2007-0004,
2007-Ohio-5297; State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum
No. CT2008-0062, 2009-Ohio-412; State v. King, 5th
Dist. Muskingum No. CT09-CA-22, 2009-Ohio-3854; State v.
King, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2009-0047,
2010-Ohio-798; State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum
No. CT2011-0006, 2011-Ohio-4529; State v. King, 5th
Dist. Muskingum No. CT2012-0018, 2012-Ohio-4070.
On September 29, 2015, appellant filed a Motion to Vacate
Void Conviction, challenging the trial court's subject
matter jurisdiction because the indictment was invalid or
void. By Journal Entry filed on October 20, 2015, the trial
court denied the motion. Appellant then appealed. Pursuant to
an Opinion filed on April 29, 2016 in State v. King,
5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2015-0058, 2016-Ohio-2788, this
Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Appellant, on September 27, 2016, filed a Motion to Correct
Void Sentence. Appellant, in his motion, argued that his
sentence was void because the trial court, in its March 8,
2006 entry, did not make findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.13.
Pursuant to an entry filed on October 6, 2016, the trial
court denied appellant's motion, finding that
appellant's sentence was not void. We affirmed on appeal
pursuant to an opinion filed January 27, 2017. State v.
King, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2017-0021.
Appellant filed a "Motion to Resentence" on
February 23, 2017, arguing that the jury verdict form did not
contain sufficient information to make his conviction on
count one a second degree felony, and it therefore should
have been reduced to a fourth degree felony. He argued his
sentence was void pursuant to R.C. 2945.75(A)(2). The trial
court overruled the motion, finding it was an untimely,
successive petition for ...