Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery
Appeal from Common Pleas Court Trial Court Case No.
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Atty. Reg. No.
0069384, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County
Prosecutor's Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery
County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio
45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
LAWRENCE E. WILSON, Inmate No. A349-229, Franklin Medical
Center, P.O. Box 23658, Columbus, Ohio 43223
1} Defendant-appellant Lawrence Wilson appeals from
a decision of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas
denying his motion to vacate judgment and request for Grand
Jury testimony. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
2} In 1997, Wilson was convicted of rape of a person
under thirteen years of age. Following Wilson's direct
appeal, we affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v.
Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery Nos. 16728, 16752, 1998 WL
639100, * 1 (Aug. 7, 1998). Since then, Wilson has repeatedly
sought review of his conviction and sentence with this court,
the Fourth District Court of Appeals, the Ohio Supreme Court,
and the federal courts to review his
conviction. He has used various procedural mechanisms
including a request for reconsideration, numerous petitions
for post-conviction relief, and petitions for extraordinary
writs of mandamus, procedendo and habeas corpus. See
State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 17515, 1999 WL
173551 (Mar. 31, 1999); State ex rel. Wilson v.
Sunderland, 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 2000-Ohio-479, 721 N.E.2d
1055 (2000); State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery
No. 21738, 2007-Ohio-4885, appeal not accepted for
review, 117 Ohio St.3d 1405, 2008-Ohio-565, 881 N.E.2d
274 (Table); State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery
No. 23247, 2009-Ohio-7035; State v. Wilson, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 24352, 2011-Ohio-599. None of these actions
have been successful.
3} Wilson, turning to the instant appeal, filed a
motion on December 16, 2016, to vacate his judgment and
sentence in which he argues that his sentence is void because
(1) he was improperly and excessively sentenced; (2) the
trial court improperly entered a nunc pro tunc order amending
the original termination entry and adding an additional two
years to his sentence; (3) the trial court violated Crim.R.
43(A) by resentencing him via the nunc pro tunc entry without
having him present; (4) the guilty verdict did not state the
degree of the offense; (5) the indictment was defective; (6)
the trial court did not give an instruction on a lesser
included offense; (7) the victim recanted; (8) his waiver of
counsel was invalid and trial counsel was ineffective; and
(9) he was not permitted to allocute at sentencing.
4} Additionally, on December 23, 2016, Wilson filed
a request for Grand Jury transcripts. He argued that the
indictment was defective because it did not name or identify
the offense for which the Grand Jury indicted him. He further
contends that the victim later recanted her testimony at
trial, and thus, he is entitled to view her testimony before
the Grand Jury.
5} The trial court, citing the doctrine of res
judicata, overruled the motion to vacate and denied the
request for transcripts by entry filed January 25, 2017.
Wilson filed a timely appeal.
Claims Barred by Res Judicata
6} Wilson's first, second, third and fourth
assignments of error state as follows:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS
MOTION TO VACATE THE VOID JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY FAILING TO HOLD A HEARING PURSUANT
TO CRIM.R. 43(A) WHEN IT CORRECTED THE JUDGMENT ENTRY'S
[SIC] WITHOUT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BEING PRESENT? DID THE
TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN THE WAIVER OF ...