FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR-1987-04-0423-A
C. MORRIS, pro se, Appellant.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL
S. CALLAHAN JUDGE
Appellant, David Morris, appeals an order that denied his
"Motion for De Novo Resentencing to Correct Void
Sentence." This Court affirms.
In 1987, Mr. Morris pleaded guilty to five charges of
aggravated robbery and one charge of kidnapping. A
three-judge panel found him guilty of two charges of
aggravated murder, one charge of attempted aggravated murder,
and one charge of carrying a concealed weapon. On September
3, 1987, the trial court sentenced him to prison "for
the remainder of his natural life" for the aggravated
murder charges and imposed significant prison terms for each
of the other charges as well. (Emphasis omitted.) Mr. Morris
appealed, and this Court affirmed his convictions. State
v. Morris, 9th Dist. Summit No. 13366, 1988 WL 40387
(Apr. 27, 1988). On November 6, 2008, Mr. Morris petitioned
the trial court for postconviction relief. The trial court
dismissed the petition, and this Court affirmed, concluding
that the petition was untimely. State v.
Morris, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24613, 2009-Ohio-3183. On
March 22, 2019, Mr. Morris filed a "Motion for De Novo
Resentencing to Correct Void Sentence," in which he
argued that his sentences for aggravated murder were void
because the trial court did not have the authority to
sentence him to prison "for the remainder of his natural
life." (Emphasis omitted.) The trial court denied his
motion, and Mr. Morris filed this appeal.
OF ERROR NO. 1
TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN APPLYING RES
JUDICATA TO THIS CASE TO DENY RELIEF.
OF ERROR NO. 2
TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN REFUSING TO VACATE
THE VOID SENTENCE IN THIS CASE AND CONDUCT A DE NOVO
RESENTENCING, DENYING APPELLANT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
Mr. Morris' assignments of error argue that the trial
court erred by denying his post-sentence motion. Because we
conclude that the trial court could not consider his motion,
his two assignments of error are addressed together.
This Court must first consider the nature of the motion at
issue in this ...