State v. Isa

2025 Ohio 1083

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 28, 2025
• Docket: 2024-CA-22
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Isa, 2025-Ohio-1083.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO : : Appellee : C.A. No. 2024-CA-22 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 2007 CR 207 : ABRAHAM ISA : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas : Court) Appellant : :

...........

OPINION

Rendered on March 28, 2025

ABRAHAM ISA, Pro Se Appellant

JANE A. NAPIER, Attorney for Appellee

.............

EPLEY, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Abraham Isa appeals from a judgment of the

Champaign County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his “motion to correct

sentence.” For the reasons that follow, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} After a jury trial in late 2007, Isa was convicted of two counts of rape and 13 -2-

counts of gross sexual imposition; he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 24

years and six months and classified as a sexual predator. He directly appealed and raised

two assignments of error (including issues regarding a potential mistrial and ineffective

assistance of counsel); we affirmed the trial court’s judgment. State v. Isa, 2008-Ohio-

5906 (2d Dist.). Since then, Isa has filed numerous motions challenging his convictions

and sentence and approximately a dozen additional appeals to this court, including some

that raised issues with his sentence. See, e.g., State v. Isa, 2010-Ohio-3770 (2d Dist.);

State v. Isa, 2015-Ohio-2876 (2d Dist.); State v. Isa, 2017-Ohio-8335 (2d Dist.). Each

time, both the trial court and this court rejected his arguments.

{¶ 3} On August 8, 2024, Isa filed a new motion in the trial court titled “Motion to

Correct Sentence.” In it, he argued that his aggregate sentence should be 23 years

instead of 24 years, six months, because Count 13 should not run consecutively to the

others. The trial court rejected this argument, and Isa has filed a timely appeal in which

he raises two assignments of error. We need not address his specific arguments because

they are barred by res judicata.

II. Res Judicata

{¶ 4} Isa raises sentencing issues in both of his assignments of error. In his first

assignment, he alleges that the trial court’s explanation that the “law of the case” doctrine

precluded his success was incorrect, and in his second assignment of error, he claims

that his 24-and-a-half-year sentence was a violation of due process because it caused

him to serve more time than is reflected in his sentencing entry.

{¶ 5} “Pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, a valid final judgment on the merits -3-

bars all subsequent actions based on any claim arising out of the transaction or

occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.” State v. Reed, 2015-Ohio-

3051, ¶ 26 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Collins, 2013-Ohio-3645, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.). Accord

State v. Hatton, 2013-Ohio-475, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.) (“[R]es judicata bars a motion for a new

trial when the movant raised, or could have raised, that issue, in a prior action.”). “[T]he

doctrine serves to preclude a defendant who has had his day in court from seeking a

second on that same issue. In so doing, res judicata promotes the principles of finality

and judicial economy by preventing endless relitigation of an issue on which a defendant

has already received a full and fair opportunity to be heard.” State v. Saxon, 2006-Ohio-

1245, ¶ 18.

{¶ 6} Isa’s argument to the court below and now on appeal in his second

assignment of error is that his sentence was incorrect and that he is serving more time

than was required. This argument has been made before on numerous occasions,

especially in Isa, 2010-Ohio-3770 (2d Dist.). That case addressed the exact argument

made here: that Isa’s sentence should have been 23 years instead of the 24-and-a-half

years he received. We rejected that argument then, and it is foreclosed now. To the extent

that there is a new argument made this time (that his due process rights are being violated

because of the allegedly faulty sentence), it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata as

well, because it could have been raised previously. Isa’s second assignment of error is

overruled.

{¶ 7} As to Isa’s first assignment of error, in which he argues that the trial court

erred in using the “law of the case” doctrine to deny his sentencing argument, we need -4-

not reach this argument, because Isa’s underlying claim as to the appropriateness of his

sentence is barred by res judicata; it has been addressed before on multiple occasions.

The first assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 8} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

LEWIS, J. and HANSEMAN, J., concur.