Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Paul A. Mancino, Jr. Mancino, Mancino
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: Amy Venesile Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney Justice Center - 9th Floor
S. Gallagher, J., McCormack, P.J., and Boyle, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
Appellant Donald Ray Williams appeals the trial court's
decision that denied his "motion to vacate void
judgment." Upon review, we affirm the decision of the
On October 26, 1995, appellant was convicted following a jury
trial on one count of murder (R.C. 2903.01) with a firearm
specification and two counts of having a weapon while under
disability (R.C. 2923.13) with firearm and violence
specifications. The trial court sentenced appellant as
ON COUNT 1; 3 YEARS ACTUAL FOR FIREARM SPECS., 15 YEARS TO
LIFE FOR MURDER, 3 YEARS ACTUAL TO BE SERVED BEFORE
COMMENCEMENT OF 15 YEARS TO LIFE SENTENCE. COUNT 2; 3 YEARS
ACTUAL FOR GUN SPECS. 3 YEARS TO 5 YEARS SENTENCE ON WEAPON
DISABILITY CONSECUTIVE WITH COUNT 1; SENTENCE ON COUNT 3
MERGED WITH COUNT 2; TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVE WITH SENTENCE
IN FEDERAL COURT. PAY COSTS.
Appellant's convictions were affirmed on appeal in
State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69936,
1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 4796 (Oct. 31, 1996). Subsequent motions
brought by appellant were denied.
On March 22, 2017, appellant filed a "motion to vacate
void judgment." Appellant made a blanket argument that
"the journal entry of sentencing does not appear to
conform to [Crim.R. 32(B)]." He further claimed that the
trial court violated former R.C. 2929.71(B) when it imposed
consecutive sentences for the firearm specifications, which
he asserted involved the same firearm and arose out of the
same transaction. In addition, he claimed he was sentenced
for allied offenses of similar import in violation of R.C.
On May 10, 2017, the trial court denied appellant's
motion. In its journal entry, the trial court stated as
Defendant's motion to vacate void judgment is denied.
Defendant's motion is, in essence, [a] petition for post
conviction relief under [R.C] 2953.21 * * *. Defendant's
petition for relief is untimely and otherwise barred by res
Appellant filed this appeal from the trial court's
decision. He raises two assignments of error for our review.
Under his first assignment of error, appellant claims he was
denied due process of law because "the [trial] court
failed to recognize that the sentencing entry did not conform
to the law." Appellant makes a blanket assertion that
the judgment of conviction did not conform with Crim.R.
32(B). This argument may be disregarded because appellant
failed to identify any deficiency in the court's journal
entry. Furthermore, our review of the entry ...