Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum
appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case
Plaintiff-Appellee MUSKINGUM COUNTY PROSECUTOR
Defendant-Appellant DANIEL D. LYNCH NORTHEAST OHIO
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Appellant appeals the judgment entry of the Muskingum County
Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to vacate sentence.
Appellee is the State of Ohio.
& Procedural History
In October of 2013, appellant Daniel Lynch was convicted of
gross sexual imposition and unlawful sexual conduct with a
minor, both felonies of the fourth degree. Appellant was
classified as a Tier I Sexual Offender. On August 3, 2014,
appellant was released from prison on post-release control.
On April 15, 2015, appellant was indicted on one count of
failure to register as a sex offender (address change) in
violation of R.C. 2950.05(A), a felony of the fourth degree.
On July 8, 2015, appellant pled guilty to one count of
failure to register. The trial court accepted his plea of
guilty and ordered a pre-sentence investigation. On August 3,
2015, the trial court sentenced appellant at a sentencing
Additionally, on August 4, 2015, the trial court issued a
sentencing entry. The trial court sentenced appellant to
fourteen (14) months in prison. The trial court also stated
in the sentencing entry that appellant was on post-release
control at the time of the commission of the offense herein.
The sentencing entry provides, "pursuant to ORC
2929.141, this Court terminates the Defendant's period of
post release control and hereby ORDERS that the Defendant
serve the remainder of his post-release control; said
sentence shall be served mandatory consecutive to
the sentence imposed herein."
On May 18, 2017, appellant filed a motion to vacate sentence.
Appellant argued that: the trial court violated his rights
pursuant to Criminal Rule 43(A) as the trial court never told
him how much time he had remaining on his post-release
control and the trial court did not impose a sentence as to
the remainder of his post-release control time. Appellant
sought to vacate and void his prison term because the years
he had remaining on post-release control were added to his
sentence via the Bureau of Sentencing Computation once he
arrived at the state correctional institution. Appellant
argued his sentence should be vacated as his right to notice
and right to due process was violated.
Appellee filed an opposition to appellant's motion on May
26, 2017. Appellee argued appellant's post-conviction
relief petition was untimely and his arguments were barred by
The trial court issued a judgment entry denying
appellant's motion on May 30, 2017. The trial court found
appellant failed to raise these issues in a direct appeal or
timely post-conviction relief petition and are thus barred by
res judicata. The trial court also found that, pursuant to
Criminal Rule 43, appellant's presence was required at
the sentencing hearing and he was there.
Appellant appeals the May 30, 2017 judgment entry of the
Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas ...