Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning
Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning
County, Ohio Case No. 05 CR 988
Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecutor and Atty. Ralph M.
Rivera, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
Franklin, Pro se
BEFORE: Cheryl L. Waite, Gene Donofrio, Kathleen Bartlett,
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Appellant Craig Franklin appeals the judgment of the Mahoning
County Common Pleas Court denying his motion to declare the
allegedly unlawful sentence for his convictions on felony
murder and aggravated robbery void. A review of the matter
reveals that Appellant's appeal is untimely and barred by
res judicata. The judgment of the trial court is
and Procedural History
This matter stems from the robbery of Atway's Market in
Youngstown in 2005. Appellant and an accomplice entered the
market followed a few seconds later by three other
individuals. All were juveniles. The group announced they
were robbing the store. Two of the five juveniles had guns.
One of the perpetrators pointed his gun at one store
owner's face. Another held the other store owner at
gunpoint. A third store owner pushed one of the perpetrators
into a candy rack. At that point, the first store owner was
able to reach his own gun and fired two shots, the first
injuring one of the perpetrators and the second hitting a
second, who subsequently died. Two of the robbers eventually
confessed to the crime and implicated Appellant as the
A jury convicted Appellant of complicity to commit murder and
complicity to commit aggravated robbery. Appellant was
sentenced to fifteen years to life imprisonment for
complicity to commit murder and ten years on complicity to
commit aggravated robbery, to be served consecutively.
Appellant filed a timely appeal with this Court in which we
affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v.
Franklin, 7th Dist. No. 06-MA-79, 2008-Ohio-2264. On
July 10, 2017, Appellant filed a pro se motion to
correct his allegedly unlawful and/or void sentence. The
trial court denied Appellant's motion, deciding it was
filed untimely and failed to satisfy the requirements of R.C.
2953.23(A)(1). Appellant filed this timely appeal.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT WAS IN EARROR [SIC] WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT
MOTION FOR VOID AND RESENTENCEING [SIC] UNDER THE
8TH AMENDMENT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his
motion to correct his unlawful and/or void sentence. We must
consider whether Appellant's motion comported with the
requirements of a postconviction petition.