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. Wimbley

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

June 19, 2018

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Victore Wimbley, Defendant-Appellant.

          APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. No. 11CR-1930

         On brief:

          Victore Wimbley, pro se.

          Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Seth L. Gilbert, for appellee.

          DECISION

          HORTON, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Victore Wimbley, pro se, appeals the December 15, 2017 judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his postconviction motion for resentencing. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶ 2} On April 19, 2011, appellant was indicted on one count of aggravated burglary, five counts of aggravated robbery, one count of rape, one count of felonious assault, and five counts of kidnapping-all with a three-year firearm specification. On March 5, 2012, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the following: (1) Count 1 of the indictment, Aggravated Burglary-victims Francisco San Agustin and Christine San Agustin; (2) Count 2 of the indictment, Aggravated Robbery-victim Kayla White, (3) Count 6 of the indictment, Felonious Assault-victim Francisco San Agustin, (4) Count 8 of the indictment, Kidnapping-victim Francisco San Agustin; and (5) Count 11 of the indictment, Aggravated Robbery-victim Sheila Starre. Appellant also pled guilty to firearm specifications as to Counts 1, 2, 6, 8, and 11 of the indictment.

         {¶ 3} On May 2, 2012, the trial court imposed a sentence of 6 years plus 3 years as to the firearm specification as to each count. The trial court noted: "The firearm specifications as to Count One, Two, Six, Eight and Eleven shall merge. Count One shall be served concurrent with Counts Two, Six, Eight and Eleven. Counts Two, Six, Eight and Eleven shall be served consecutive to each other, for a total sentence of TWENTY-SEVEN (27) YEARS." (May 3, 2012 Jgmt. Entry at 2.) Appellant did not pursue a timely appeal from his convictions and sentences.

         {¶ 4} Approximately five and one-half years after sentencing, on November 2, 2017, appellant filed a motion for re-sentencing, claiming that his sentences for Counts 2, 6, and 8 of the indictment should merge and run concurrently because those convictions are allied offenses. The trial court ruled that:

This Court will not reconsider the final judgment that it validly imposed in this matter on May 2, 2012. The Court notes that the offenses to which Defendant pled guilty on March 5, 2012 are not allied offenses of similar import, and further notes that Defendant's motion is barred by res judicata.
The Court DENIES Defendant's motion.

(Dec. 15, 2017 Entry Denying Def.'s Mot. For Resentencing at 1.)

         II. ...


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.