Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull
Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Case
No. 2015 CR 00518.
Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ashleigh Musick,
Assistant Prosecutor, Administration Building, (For
Mitchell, pro se, Trumbull Correctional Institution, P.O.
V. GRENDELL, J.
Defendant-appellant, Robert Mitchell, appeals from the
judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas,
denying his Motion to Correct a Sentence. The issue to be
determined by this court is whether an offender is barred by
res judicata from raising errors regarding the imposition of
consecutive sentences in postconviction proceedings. For the
following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.
On July 1, 2015, Mitchell was indicted by the Trumbull County
Grand Jury on Possession of Heroin, a felony of the fifth
degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(6)(a).
A Finding on Guilty Plea to the Indictment was filed on
October 27, 2015. Pursuant to this document, Mitchell agreed
to enter a plea to the charge as contained in the Indictment.
It also provided that "[t]he underlying agreement upon
which this plea is based is as follows: Defendant waives a
PSI. The State and Defendant agree to a jointly recommended
prison sentence of 6 months, said sentence to be served
consecutively to the prison sentence the Defendant is
currently serving, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Case
On November 2, 2015, an Entry of Sentence was filed, in which
the court noted that it considered the record, as well as the
purposes and principles of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11
and the factors in R.C. 2929.12. It found that a consecutive
sentence was "necessary to protect the public from
future crime or to punish the offender; [and] that
consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the
seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger
the offender poses to the public." The court sentenced
Mitchell to a term of six months in prison, to run
consecutively with his prison term in the aforementioned
Cuyahoga case. Mitchell did not appeal.
On April 28, 2017, Mitchell filed a Motion to Correct a
Sentence that is Contrary to Law, arguing that the trial
court failed to make necessary consecutive sentencing
The trial court issued a Judgment Entry on May 10, 2017,
finding that it had made consecutive sentencing findings.
Mitchell timely appeals and raises the following assignments
"[1.] The trial court erred [in] fail[ing] to make the
required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) prior to imposing
consecutive sentences on Appellant, in violation of his Due
Process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section  10 of the Ohio
"[2.] The trial court erred in denying Appellant's
Motion to Correct a Sentence that is Contrary to Law, in
violation of his Due Process protections under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 
10 of the Ohio Constitution."
Consideration of Mitchell's argument on appeal is barred
by his failure to file a direct appeal from the November 2,