FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 04 09 3018
A. MORALES, pro se, Appellant.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorneyfor Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Defendant-Appellant, Marcel A. Morales, appeals the judgment
of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion
to correct post-release control. We affirm.
This is the third appeal Morales has taken involving his
criminal convictions and sentence. In a prior appeal,
State v. Morales, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27765,
2016-Ohio-3313 ("Morales I "), this Court
set forth the basic underlying factual and procedural history
In 2004, Morales was indicted on nineteen counts, ranging
from breaking and entering to aggravated robbery and
attempted murder. Nine of the counts included firearm
specifications. He pled guilty to thirteen of the counts, and
the State dismissed the balance of the charges including the
attempted murder charges.
Morales' written plea of guilty indicates that he and the
prosecutor agreed to recommend nine-year sentences for two
aggravated robberies and three-year sentences for firearm
specifications attached to those counts. His written plea
further indicates that the parties agreed those sentences
should be run consecutively for a total of twenty-four years
with the sentences for the other counts to run concurrently.
The trial court sentenced Morales to nine years in prison for
each of the aggravated robberies and three years for each of
the associated firearm specifications. The court further
ordered that this time be served consecutively for a total of
twenty-four years. The court ordered the sentences for the
remaining counts be served concurrently.
Id. at ¶ 2-3. Morales did not file a direct
On January 3, 2011, Morales filed a motion for a new
sentencing hearing on the basis that the trial court failed
to properly impose post-release control in its sentencing
entry. The trial court subsequently resentenced Morales to
the same term of imprisonment as contained in its previous
sentencing entry, but added a mandatory five-year period of
post-release control. The trial court's sentence was
journalized via entry on February 22, 2011.
On January 9, 2013, Morales filed a notice of appeal from the
trial court's February 22, 2011 sentencing entry. This
Court subsequently dismissed Morales' attempted appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. See State v. Morales, 9th
Dist. Summit No. 26750 (Jan. 30, 2013). Morales thereafter
filed a "motion to notice plain error and correct
manifest miscarriage of justice" pursuant to Crim.R.
52(B), arguing that the trial court committed plain error by
imposing consecutive sentences without making the requisite
statutory findings under former R.C. 2929.14(E)(4), which has
since been renumbered to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court
ultimately denied Morales' motion. Morales appealed from
the trial court's denial of his "motion to notice
plain error" and this Court affirmed the trial
court's denial on the basis that the motion was, in fact,
an untimely petition for postconviction relief. See
Morales I ¶ at 8-10.
On December 5, 2016, Morales filed a "motion to correct
postrelease control" wherein he argued that the trial
court did not properly sentence him to post-release control
at his resentencing hearing in 2011. The State filed a
memorandum in opposition and the trial court summarily denied
Morales filed this timely appeal and presents two ...