Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County,
Ohio Case No. 2006 CR 95
Plaintiff-Appellee: Atty. Paul J. Gains Mahoning County
Prosecutor Atty. Ralph M. Rivera Assistant Prosecuting
Defendant-Appellant: Aaron L. Jones, Sr., Pro se Avon-Belden.
Cheryl L. Waite, Hon. Gene Donofrio, Hon. Mary DeGenaro,
Appellant Aaron L. Jones, Sr. appeals a December 13, 2016
Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judgment entry denying his
"Pro Se Motion for Relief from Void Sentence
VIA ORC 2967328(B) [sic]." Appellant raises several
alleged errors, including sufficiency of the evidence,
manifest weight of the evidence, a speedy trial violation,
consecutive sentencing, contradicting verdicts, refusal of
the trial court to provide transcripts, and failure to
provide proper postrelease control notification. Only
Appellant's postrelease control argument has merit. The
remaining aspects of Appellant's appeal are untimely and
the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as to those. The
matter is remanded solely for the limited purpose of
obtaining a nunc pro tunc entry to correct the
postrelease control error.
and Procedural History
On May 25, 2006, Appellant was convicted of one count of
aggravated robbery, a felony of the first degree in violation
of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), (C), and one count of aggravated
burglary, a felony of the first degree in violation of R.C.
2911.11(A)(1), (B). The trial court sentenced him to an
aggregate total of twenty years of incarceration.
Appellant filed a direct appeal where he argued that his
convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and
were against the manifest weight of the evidence, the trial
court failed to provide curative instructions following
defense objections, his speedy trial rights were violated,
error occurred in various sentencing issues, and that his
counsel provided ineffective assistance. State v.
Jones, 7th Dist. No. 06 MA 109, 2008-Ohio-1541
("Jones I "). We found no merit to
Appellant's arguments and affirmed his convictions and
sentence. Appellant filed a delayed appeal to the Ohio
Supreme Court, which was denied. State v. Jones, 120
Ohio St.3d 1414, 2008-Ohio-6166, 897 N.E.2d 650.
Since Appellant's direct appeal, he has filed several
postconviction motions. On January 5, 2007, Appellant filed a
"Petition to Vacate or Set Aside Sentence" while
his direct appeal was pending. In this motion, he raised
sufficiency of the evidence and speedy trial arguments. On
March 27, 2008, after Jones I was released,
Appellant filed a motion for a new trial. The trial court
denied this motion and no appeal was taken.
On July 23, 2008, Appellant filed a postconviction petition
to "Set Aside or Vacate Judgment of Conviction or
Sentence." In his petition he asserted a speedy trial
violation and an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Two
weeks later, Appellant filed an identical petition. The trial
court denied the petitions and no appeal was taken.
On February 25, 2009, Appellant filed a "Motion for
Acquittal, " arguing that his convictions were not
supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court denied the
motion and no appeal was taken.
On November 18, 2009, Appellant filed a "Motion for Void
Judgment" where he argued that his indictment was
defective. On December 28, 2009, Appellant filed a
postconviction petition to "Set Aside or Vacate Judgment
of Conviction or Sentence." On January 7, 2010,
Appellant filed a second postconviction petition to "Set
Aside or Vacate Judgment of Conviction or Sentence." The
trial court denied all three motions. Appellant appealed this
denial in State v. Jones, 7th Dist. No. 10 MA 47,
2011-Ohio-1002 ("Jones II"). We ruled that
Appellant's petition was both successive and untimely
filed and affirmed the trial court's decision.
On December 5, 2011, Appellant filed a "Motion to
Correct Judgment and/or Vacate and Resentence Pursuant to
H.B. 86." The trial court denied this motion and we
affirmed the trial court in State v. Jones, 7th