from the Stark County Common Pleas Court, Case No. 2011CR1494
Plaintiff-Appellee JOHN D. FERRERO Prosecuting Attorney, By:
KATHLEEN O. TATARSKY Assistant Prosecuting Attorney.
Defendant-Appellant DELANOR L. MACKSYN, PRO SE.
JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
Appellant Delanor L. Macksyn appeals the judgment entered by
the Stark County Common Pleas Court overruling his motion for
reconsideration of sentence. Appellee is the State of Ohio.
OF THE CASE
In 2012, Appellant was convicted of three counts of unlawful
sexual conduct with a minor (R.C. 2907.04(A)(B)(3)) following
jury trial in the Stark County Common Pleas Court. He was
sentenced to sixty months incarceration on each count, to be
served consecutively, for a total of 180 months (fifteen
years). His convictions were affirmed by this Court on direct
appeal. State v. Macksyn, 5th Dist. Stark No.
On July 28, 2017, Appellant filed a motion for
reconsideration of his sentence. He argued the trial court
failed to inform him of his right to appeal; failed to inform
him of postrelease control, the consequences of violating
postrelease control, and failed to incorporate the imposition
of postrelease control into the sentencing entry; failed to
make findings to support the imposition of consecutive
sentences; and improperly sentenced him on a count on which
he was acquitted. The court summarily overruled the motion.
Appellant prosecutes his appeal from this August 1, 2017
judgment of the court, assigning as error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED
TO NOTIFY APPELLANT OF HIS RIGHTS TO APPEAL CRIM. R. 32(B)
VIOLATING HIS DUE PROCESS.
II. THE TRIAL JUDGE VIOLATED THE APPELLANTS DUE PROCESS OF
LAW WHEN IMPOSING MAXIMUM AND CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WITHOUT
THE AUTHORITY TO ACT.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPROPERLY IMPOSING
POST-RELEASE CONTROL AT THE SENTENCING HEARING AND FAIL [SIC]
TO INCORPORATE POST-RELEASE CONTROL INTO ITS SENTENCING ENTRY
THUS VIOLATING APPELLANTS DUE PROCESS.
IV. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND PROTECTION FROM
DOUBLE JEOPARDY WHEN THE INDICTMENT FAILED TO DIFFERENTIATE
WHICH INCIDENTS ...