Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Williams

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County

February 22, 2018

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
DONALD RAY WILLIAMS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

         Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-94-315917-ZA

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Paul A. Mancino, Jr. Mancino, Mancino & Mancino

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Amy Venesile Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Justice Center - 9th Floor

          Before S. Gallagher, J., McCormack, P.J., and Boyle, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

         {¶1} 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 trial court.

         {¶2} 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 follows:

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.

         {¶3} 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.

         {¶4} 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. 2941.25.

         {¶5} On May 10, 2017, the trial court denied appellant's motion. In its journal entry, the trial court stated as follows:

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 judicata.

         {¶6} Appellant filed this appeal from the trial court's decision. He raises two assignments of error for our review.

         {¶7} 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.