FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE Nos. 09CR079313 10CR079750 10CR079984
MACIEL-VALADEZ, pro se, Appellant.
P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATASHA RUIZ GUERRIERI,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
A. SCHAFER, JUDGE.
Defendant-Appellant, Jesus Maciel-Valadez, appeals from the
judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This
Maciel-Valadez was indicted on drug charges in three separate
criminal cases: Case No. 09CR079313, Case No. 10CR079750, and
Case No. 10CR079984. He ultimately pleaded guilty in all
three cases, and the trial court issued each of his three
sentencing entries on the same day. In each case, the court
imposed a prison term and ordered him to pay the costs of his
prosecution and all court-appointed counsel costs. The court
also imposed mandatory fines in two of the cases, but
suspended them due to Maciel-Valadez' indigent status.
More than five years later, Maciel-Valadez filed in all three
of his cases identical motions to terminate the collection of
court costs and fines. He noted that he had recently received
notices from the account clerk supervisor at the prison
regarding each case. The notices informed him that the prison
would be withdrawing money from his personal account to begin
satisfying his outstanding payment obligations.
Maciel-Valadez argued that, because the court had waived all
of his court costs and fines when sentencing him, the prison
lacked authority to withdraw money from his account. Thus, he
asked the court to issue an order directing the account clerk
supervisor and the Clerk of Courts to terminate the
collection of his costs and fines.
The State filed identical briefs in opposition to the motions
to terminate. On November 24, 2015, the court issued
identical judgment entries in each case, granting the motions
to terminate. The court wrote that it was granting the
motions because, "[p]ursuant to the sentencing entry * *
*, [Maciel-Valadez] was not ordered to pay court costs or
fines." The State did not appeal from the court's
On March 9, 2016, Maciel-Valadez filed in each of his three
cases identical motions to return money the prison had
collected from his personal account in November and December
2015. He argued that, because the court had granted his
motions to terminate, the prison had no authority to withdraw
those funds. Rather than respond directly to his motions, the
State filed identical motions for relief from judgment in all
three cases and asked the court to vacate its November 24,
2015 judgment entries. Maciel-Valadez then filed briefs in
opposition to the State's motions.
On March 31, 2016, the court granted the State's motions
for relief from judgment and vacated its November 24th
entries. The court reinstated Maciel-Valadez' payment
obligation and denied his motions to return the money the
prison had collected. Maciel-Valadez then appealed from the
court's March 31, 2016 judgments.
Maciel-Valadez initially attempted to appeal from all three
of the trial court's March 31st judgment entries under a
single appellate case number. This Court dismissed the appeal
as to two of the entries, however, explaining that the three
cases had never been consolidated and, thus, separate appeals
had to be taken from each entry. See State v.
Maciel-Valadez, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 16CA011051 (Jan.
30, 2017). Maciel-Valadez then filed two additional appeals,
and this Court consolidated the three appeals for purposes of
Maciel-Valadez' appeals are now before us and raise two