Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum
from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
Plaintiff-Appellee: D. MICHAEL HADDOX MUSKINGUM COUNTY
PROSECUTOR GERALD V. ANDERSON II
Defendant-Appellant: RICHARD KING, PRO SE
John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Craig R.
Defendant-Appellant Richard King appeals the November 3, 2017
judgment entry of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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.
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.
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.
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-
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.
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
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 ...