Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Portage
Criminal Appeal from the Portage County Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 2013 CR 00469.
V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Theresa M.
Scahill, Assistant Prosecutor, (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
A. Johnston, (For Defendant-Appellant).
R. WRIGHT, P.J.
Appellant, Carl Raulston, appeals the denial of his motion to
have his sentence declared void due to an alleged lack of
necessary consecutive findings. We affirm.
Raulston was charged with five counts of nonsupport of
dependents, fifth-degree felonies in violation of R.C.
2919.21(A), and pleaded guilty to all five. In August of
2014, he was sentenced to community control and informed he
faced five consecutive one-year sentences if he violated the
conditions. The trial court continued Raulston on community
control in January of 2017 after his first violation.
Five months later, in June 2017, the state moved to revoke
community control. And following a hearing, the court revoked
Raulston's community control and sentenced him to five,
one-year consecutive prison terms. He did not pursue a direct
In March of 2019, Raulston filed a motion for void judgment
seeking resentencing and arguing his sentence is void because
the trial court failed to make the findings necessary for
imposing consecutive sentences. The trial court denied his
Raulston raises two assigned errors, which we address
"[1.] The Court improperly denied Defendant's motion
to void judgment and resentencing, as the court committed an
error when sentencing Raulston to consecutive sentences,
totaling five years for five counts of non-support of
"[2.] The Court improperly denied Defendant's motion
to void judgment and resentencing as the trial court erred in
sentencing Raulston to maximum consecutive terms of
When imposing consecutive sentences, a court must state the
statutory findings at the sentencing hearing to provide
notice to the defendant and include the findings in the
sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d
209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 29.
A court's failure to make requisite consecutive sentence
findings is an issue that is voidable, not void, and voidable
sentences can be set aside only via direct appeal. State
v. Hall, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2016-A-0069,
2017-Ohio-4376, 93 N.E.3d 35, ¶ 12, appeal not
allowed,151 Ohio St.3d 1428, 2017-Ohio-8371, 84 N.E.3d
1065. Whereas void sentences can be reviewed any time.
State v. Wilson, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2015-L-067,
2015-Ohio-5465, ¶ 17. "'[Principles of res
judicata do not apply to void sentences because, by
definition, a void sentence means that no final judgment of
conviction has been announced.' * * * In contrast, 'a
voidable judgment is one rendered by a court that has both
jurisdiction and authority to act,' but is 'invalid,
irregular, or erroneous.' * * *." Id. Res