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. King

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum

April 30, 2018

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RICHARD KING Defendant-Appellant

          Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2004-0327

          For Plaintiff-Appellee: D. MICHAEL HADDOX MUSKINGUM COUNTY PROSECUTOR GERALD V. ANDERSON II

          For Defendant-Appellant: RICHARD KING, PRO SE

          Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

          OPINION

          Delaney, J.

         {¶1} Defendant-Appellant Richard King appeals the November 3, 2017 judgment entry of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶2} On November 10, 2004, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted King on sixty-two counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(1) and (5). The charges were felonies of the second and fourth degrees. A jury trial commenced on January 25, 2005. The jury found King guilty of all of the charges except one, which was dismissed. As memorialized in an entry filed on March 7, 2005, the trial court sentenced King to an aggregate term of 36 ½ years in prison and classified him as a sexual predator/habitual sexual offender.

         {¶3} King filed an appeal. Pursuant to an Opinion filed on January 19, 2006, this Court affirmed King's convictions, but remanded the matter to the trial court to comply with the mandates of R.C. 2929.14(E)(4). State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum App. No. CT05-0017, 2006-Ohio-226.

         {¶4} Upon remand, the trial court resentenced King to the same sentence as memorialized in an entry filed on March 8, 2006. King filed an appeal. This Court affirmed the resentencing. State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum App. No. CT06-0020, 2006-Ohio- 6566.

         {¶5} On October 20, 2005, August 15, 2006, October 8, 2008, March 13, 2009, September 15, 2009, November 2, 2010, and July 14, 2011, King filed motions/petitions for postconviction relief on several issues including resentencing, evidentiary issues, ineffective assistance of counsel, and request for new trial. The trial court denied the motions/petitions and King filed appeals. This Court affirmed the trial court's decisions. State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2006-0021, 2007-Ohio- 2810; State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2007-0004, 2007-Ohio-5297; State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2008-0062, 2009-Ohio-412; State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT09-CA-22, 2009-Ohio-3854; State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2009-0047, 2010-Ohio-798; State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2011-0006, 2011-Ohio-4529; State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2012-0018, 2012-Ohio- 4070.

         {¶6} On September 29, 2015, King filed a Motion to Vacate Void Conviction, challenging the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction because the indictment was invalid or void. By Journal Entry filed on October 20, 2015, the trial court denied the motion. King then appealed. Pursuant to an Opinion filed on April 29, 2016 in State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2015-0058, 2016-Ohio-2788, this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

         {¶7} King, on September 27, 2016, filed a Motion to Correct Void Sentence. King argued in his motion that his sentence was void because the trial court, in its March 8, 2006 entry, did not make findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.13. Pursuant to an entry filed on October 6, 2016, the trial court denied King's motion, finding that King's sentence was not void. We affirmed on appeal pursuant to an opinion filed January 27, 2017. State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2017-0021.

         {¶8} King filed a "Motion to Resentence" on February 23, 2017, arguing the jury verdict form did not contain sufficient information to make his conviction on count one a second degree felony, and therefore it should have been reduced to a fourth degree felony. He argued his sentence was void pursuant to R.C. 2945.75(A)(2). The trial court overruled the motion, finding it was an untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief, and further that the motion was barred by the doctrine of res ...


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.