[Cite as State v. rouskoupf, 2025-Ohio-1418.]
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES: : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Robert G. Montgomery, J. : Hon. Kevin W. Popham, J. -vs- : : HARRY H. KROUSKOUPF III, : Case No. CT2024-0142 : CT2024-0143 Defendant - Appellant : : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2018-0007
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 21, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
RONALD L. WELCH HARRY H. KROUSKOUPH, III, Pro Se Prosecuting Attorney Inmate No. A742-651 Noble Correctional Institution By: MARK A. ZANGHI 15708 McConnelsville Road Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 27 N. 5th Street, Suite 201 Zanesville, Ohio 43701 Baldwin, P.J.
{¶1} The appellant, Harry H. Krouskoupf, III, appeals the December 2, 2024,
judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. The appellee is the State
of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} A full recitation of the underlying facts of the appellant’s conviction is
unnecessary for the resolution of this appeal. The appellant has appealed to this court on
six prior occasions. We have previously outlined the procedural history of this matter as
follows:
{¶3} On January 3, 2018, the Muskingum County Grand Jury returned an
indictment charging the appellant with one count of grand theft in violation of R.C.
2913.02(A)(1), two counts of petty theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), and two counts
of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1). The indictment also contained
firearm and repeat violent offender (R.V.O) specifications.
{¶4} On February 26, 2018, the appellant withdrew his previously entered pleas
of not guilty and entered pleas of guilty to one count of theft, two counts of robbery, and
a single R.V.O. specification. The remaining counts and specifications were dismissed.
{¶5} On March 13, 2018, the trial court sentenced the appellant to an aggregate
prison term of eleven years.
{¶6} Additionally, since the appellant was on post-release control when he
committed the above offenses, the trial court found that the appellant had violated the
terms of his post-release control. The trial court terminated the post-release control and
ordered him to serve a prison term equal to the time remaining. {¶7} The appellant filed a direct appeal of his convictions and sentence, arguing
that the trial court did not inform him that a sentence for post-release control violation
must be served consecutively to the sentence for the newly committed offense.
{¶8} On March 19, 2019, this Court vacated the appellant’s plea and remanded
the case to the trial court for further proceedings, finding that the trial court failed to inform
the appellant that a consecutive prison sentence was possible. State v. Krouskoupf, 2019-
Ohio-806 (5th Dist.). (“Krouskoupf I”).
{¶9} On April 12, 2019, the trial court issued an order vacating the appellants
previously entered guilty plea.
{¶10} On July 19, 2019, the appellant then entered a plea of guilty to two counts
of robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(1) and R.C. 2911.02(A)(3).
{¶11} On July 23, 2019, the trial court sentenced the appellant to an aggregate
prison sentence of eleven years. The trial court terminated the appellant’s post-release
control and ordered “that any time left remaining on that must be served consecutively to
the new sentence for his robbery charges.” The trial court found, and the parties
stipulated, that the appellant had 564 days of jail credit, along with future custody days
while he awaits transportation to the State institution. All remaining counts and
specifications were dismissed.
{¶12} On August 27, 2019, the trial court issued a journal entry stating:
The conviction in this case having been overturned by the Court of
Appeals, 5th District, was remanded back to the Muskingum County Court
of Common Pleas. Thereafter, [the appellant] pled guilty and was sentenced on July 19, 2019. The Court at that time ordered all jail credit applicable
from the origination of this case.
The Court having been advised [the appellant] was never released
from the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
and has been credited for all days through sentencing on this case hereby
amends jail credit to be zero (0) days as of July 19, 2019.
{¶13} On September 9, 2019, the trial court amended its entry stating, “The Court
hereby finds [the appellant] is entitled to seventy (70) days of jail credit as of March 12,
2018.”
{¶14} The appellant appealed from the trial court’s July 23, 2019, judgment entry
of conviction and sentence, arguing that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary because the trial court failed to advise him of the maximum penalty for the prison
term that it imposed for his post-release control violation. The appellant argued that the
trial court was obligated to notify him of the time he would be required to serve as a result
of the violation. We disagreed, affirming the judgment of the trial court. State v.
Krouskoupf, 2020-Ohio-1220 (5th Dist.). (“Krouskoupf II”).
{¶15} On May 13, 2020, the appellant filed a motion for jail-time credit, arguing
that he was entitled to 564 days of credit.
{¶16} The trial court overruled the motion on May 20, 2020.
{¶17} On March 15, 2021, the appellant filed a “Motion for Jail Credit” arguing that
he was entitled to 564 days. The trial court overruled this motion.
{¶18} On June 1, 2021, the appellant filed a “Reconsideration: Motion for Jail-
Time Credit” arguing, again, that he was entitled to 564 days. {¶19} On June 23, 2021, the trial court overruled the appellant’s motion for
reconsideration of the motion for jail-time credit.
{¶20} The appellant appealed the trail court’s denial of the Reconsideration:
Motion for Jail-Time Credit” finding that the appellant’s assignments of error were barred
by the doctrine of res judicata. State v. Krouskoupf, 2021-Ohio-3968 (5th Dist.).
(“Krouskoupf III”).
{¶21} On February 28, 2022, the appellant filed a writ of mandamus, again
challenging the calculation of his jail time credit. State ex el. Krouskoupf v. Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2022-Ohio-1310 (5th Dist.). The appellant
argued that the trial court’s September 9, 2019, amended Judgment Entry was contrary
to law because it was filed without him being present in court for the change, as the trial
court effectively extended his sentence by reducing his jail time credit from five hundred
sixty-four days (564) days to seventy (70) days.
{¶22} This Court found the appellant could not state a claim for mandamus relief
based on the doctrine of res judicata because the appellant failed to pursue an available
adequate remedy at law. Id. (“Krouskoupf IV”).
{¶23} On July 21, 2022, the appellant filed a Motion to Correct Sentencing Error,
again arguing he is entitled to 564 days of jail time credit.
{¶24} On February 1, 2023, he filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
{¶25} On February 17, 2023, the trial court denied the appellant’s motions, finding
them precluded by res judicata.
{¶26} The appellant appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing that the trial court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. rouskoupf, 2025-Ohio-1418.]
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES: : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Robert G. Montgomery, J. : Hon. Kevin W. Popham, J. -vs- : : HARRY H. KROUSKOUPF III, : Case No. CT2024-0142 : CT2024-0143 Defendant - Appellant : : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2018-0007
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 21, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
RONALD L. WELCH HARRY H. KROUSKOUPH, III, Pro Se Prosecuting Attorney Inmate No. A742-651 Noble Correctional Institution By: MARK A. ZANGHI 15708 McConnelsville Road Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 27 N. 5th Street, Suite 201 Zanesville, Ohio 43701 Baldwin, P.J.
{¶1} The appellant, Harry H. Krouskoupf, III, appeals the December 2, 2024,
judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. The appellee is the State
of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} A full recitation of the underlying facts of the appellant’s conviction is
unnecessary for the resolution of this appeal. The appellant has appealed to this court on
six prior occasions. We have previously outlined the procedural history of this matter as
follows:
{¶3} On January 3, 2018, the Muskingum County Grand Jury returned an
indictment charging the appellant with one count of grand theft in violation of R.C.
2913.02(A)(1), two counts of petty theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), and two counts
of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1). The indictment also contained
firearm and repeat violent offender (R.V.O) specifications.
{¶4} On February 26, 2018, the appellant withdrew his previously entered pleas
of not guilty and entered pleas of guilty to one count of theft, two counts of robbery, and
a single R.V.O. specification. The remaining counts and specifications were dismissed.
{¶5} On March 13, 2018, the trial court sentenced the appellant to an aggregate
prison term of eleven years.
{¶6} Additionally, since the appellant was on post-release control when he
committed the above offenses, the trial court found that the appellant had violated the
terms of his post-release control. The trial court terminated the post-release control and
ordered him to serve a prison term equal to the time remaining. {¶7} The appellant filed a direct appeal of his convictions and sentence, arguing
that the trial court did not inform him that a sentence for post-release control violation
must be served consecutively to the sentence for the newly committed offense.
{¶8} On March 19, 2019, this Court vacated the appellant’s plea and remanded
the case to the trial court for further proceedings, finding that the trial court failed to inform
the appellant that a consecutive prison sentence was possible. State v. Krouskoupf, 2019-
Ohio-806 (5th Dist.). (“Krouskoupf I”).
{¶9} On April 12, 2019, the trial court issued an order vacating the appellants
previously entered guilty plea.
{¶10} On July 19, 2019, the appellant then entered a plea of guilty to two counts
of robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(1) and R.C. 2911.02(A)(3).
{¶11} On July 23, 2019, the trial court sentenced the appellant to an aggregate
prison sentence of eleven years. The trial court terminated the appellant’s post-release
control and ordered “that any time left remaining on that must be served consecutively to
the new sentence for his robbery charges.” The trial court found, and the parties
stipulated, that the appellant had 564 days of jail credit, along with future custody days
while he awaits transportation to the State institution. All remaining counts and
specifications were dismissed.
{¶12} On August 27, 2019, the trial court issued a journal entry stating:
The conviction in this case having been overturned by the Court of
Appeals, 5th District, was remanded back to the Muskingum County Court
of Common Pleas. Thereafter, [the appellant] pled guilty and was sentenced on July 19, 2019. The Court at that time ordered all jail credit applicable
from the origination of this case.
The Court having been advised [the appellant] was never released
from the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
and has been credited for all days through sentencing on this case hereby
amends jail credit to be zero (0) days as of July 19, 2019.
{¶13} On September 9, 2019, the trial court amended its entry stating, “The Court
hereby finds [the appellant] is entitled to seventy (70) days of jail credit as of March 12,
2018.”
{¶14} The appellant appealed from the trial court’s July 23, 2019, judgment entry
of conviction and sentence, arguing that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary because the trial court failed to advise him of the maximum penalty for the prison
term that it imposed for his post-release control violation. The appellant argued that the
trial court was obligated to notify him of the time he would be required to serve as a result
of the violation. We disagreed, affirming the judgment of the trial court. State v.
Krouskoupf, 2020-Ohio-1220 (5th Dist.). (“Krouskoupf II”).
{¶15} On May 13, 2020, the appellant filed a motion for jail-time credit, arguing
that he was entitled to 564 days of credit.
{¶16} The trial court overruled the motion on May 20, 2020.
{¶17} On March 15, 2021, the appellant filed a “Motion for Jail Credit” arguing that
he was entitled to 564 days. The trial court overruled this motion.
{¶18} On June 1, 2021, the appellant filed a “Reconsideration: Motion for Jail-
Time Credit” arguing, again, that he was entitled to 564 days. {¶19} On June 23, 2021, the trial court overruled the appellant’s motion for
reconsideration of the motion for jail-time credit.
{¶20} The appellant appealed the trail court’s denial of the Reconsideration:
Motion for Jail-Time Credit” finding that the appellant’s assignments of error were barred
by the doctrine of res judicata. State v. Krouskoupf, 2021-Ohio-3968 (5th Dist.).
(“Krouskoupf III”).
{¶21} On February 28, 2022, the appellant filed a writ of mandamus, again
challenging the calculation of his jail time credit. State ex el. Krouskoupf v. Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2022-Ohio-1310 (5th Dist.). The appellant
argued that the trial court’s September 9, 2019, amended Judgment Entry was contrary
to law because it was filed without him being present in court for the change, as the trial
court effectively extended his sentence by reducing his jail time credit from five hundred
sixty-four days (564) days to seventy (70) days.
{¶22} This Court found the appellant could not state a claim for mandamus relief
based on the doctrine of res judicata because the appellant failed to pursue an available
adequate remedy at law. Id. (“Krouskoupf IV”).
{¶23} On July 21, 2022, the appellant filed a Motion to Correct Sentencing Error,
again arguing he is entitled to 564 days of jail time credit.
{¶24} On February 1, 2023, he filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
{¶25} On February 17, 2023, the trial court denied the appellant’s motions, finding
them precluded by res judicata.
{¶26} The appellant appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing that the trial court
was without jurisdiction to amend his sentence and did so without him or his counsel present. State v. Krouskoupf, 2023-Ohio-2765 (5th Dist.). We found the appellant’s
arguments barred by res judicata. Id.
{¶27} On October 20, 2023, the appellant filed a motion for delayed appeal of our
decision in State v. Krouskoupf, 2023-Ohio-2765 (5th Dist.) with the Supreme Court of
Ohio. (“Krouskoupf V”). The Supreme Court denied the motion.
{¶28} On September 21, 2023, the appellant filed a writ of mandamus with the
Supreme Court of Ohio requesting that the Supreme Court compel this Court to “follow
Ohio and Federal law concerning his sentence; compelling the amendments to his
sentence to be considered void and a nullity.”
{¶29} On November 8, 2923, the Supreme Court of Ohio granted the State’s
motion to dismiss the writ. Harry H. Krouskoupf III v. Fifth District Court of Appeals, 2023-
1113.
{¶30} On November 27, 2023, the appellant filed a motion in the trial court entitled
“Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Amended Entries (due to lack of jurisdiction).” The
appellant raised the same arguments as Krouskoupf V. The trial court denied the
appellant’s motion as it is barred by res judicata. The appellant appealed the trial court’s
decision.
{¶31} On May 6, 2024, this Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding the
appellant’s claims barred by res judicata. State v. Krouskoupf, 2023-Ohio-2765 (5th Dist.).
(“Krouskoupf VI”).
{¶32} On August 6, 2024, the appellant filed a Request for Declaratory Judgment
in his criminal case.
{¶33} On August 26, 2024, the appellant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. {¶34} On November 12, 2024, the appellant filed a Motion for Order for
Declaratory Judgment.
{¶35} On November 19, 2024, the appellee filed a Response to the Motion for
Order for Declaratory Judgment.
{¶36} On November 4, 2024, the appellant filed a Motion to Correct Sentencing
Entry.
{¶37} On November 12, 2024, the appellee filed a Memorandum in Opposition.
{¶38} On December 2, 2024, the trial court denied the appellant’s Motion to
Correct Sentencing Entry and the appellant’s Motion for Order for Declaratory Judgment.
{¶39} The appellant appealed the trial court’s judgment entries raising the
following two assignments of error in two separate case numbers:
CT2024-0142
{¶40} “I. THE MUSKINGUM COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT ERRED TO
HARRY H. KROUSKOUPF III’S PREJUDICE WHEN IT AFFIRMED ITS AMENDMENTS
TO ITS OWN PROPERLY IMPOSED SENTENCE DURING A PENDING APPEAL AND
WHILE IT HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION,
RESULTING IN A VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL UNDER THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT OF THE UNTIED STATES CONSTITUTION.”
CT2024-0143
{¶41} “I. THE ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY HAS IMPROPERLY CHANGED ITS
CALCULATION OF HIS JUDICIAL SANCTION DUE TO THE MUSKINGUM COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT AMENDING HIS SENTENCE ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2019,
RESULTING IN PREJUDICE TOWARDS HIM AS A RESULTOF AN ENHANCEMENT
OF HIS SENTENCE.”
{¶42} In case CT 2024-0142, the appellant rehashes the same argument as
Krouskroupf VI, that the trial court erred in finding his Motion to Correct Sentence is barred
by res judicata. We disagree.
ANALYSIS
{¶43} A motion to correct or vacate a sentence may be construed as a petition for
postconviction relief where the motion was filed subsequent to a direct appeal, claimed a
denial of constitutional rights, sought to render the judgment void, and asked for a
vacation of the judgment and sentence. See State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997).
{¶44} Res judicata “preclude[s] a [party] who has had his day in court from seeking
a second on that same issue.” State v. Saxon, 2006-Ohio-1245, ¶18. It “promotes the
principles of finality and judicial economy by preventing endless relitigating of an issue on
which a [party] has already received a full and fair opportunity to be heard.” Id.
{¶45} In the case sub judice, the appellant has refiled some version of his Motion
to Correct Sentence several times. Each has been denied, and this Court has affirmed
the trial court in each appeal. Therefore, we overrule the appellant’s assignment of error
as the trial court correctly found this motion was barred by res judicata.
{¶46} The appellant’s assignment of error is overruled. CT2024-0143
{¶47} In case CT 2024-0143, the appellant argues the trial court erred in
dismissing the appellant’s Motion for a Declaratory Judgment. We disagree.
{¶48} “An action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2721 is a
civil action[.]” Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Wickham, 63 Ohio St.2d 16, 21 (1980). “The same is
true under Civ.R. 57, which incorporates R.C. Chapter 2721.” State v. Patterson, 2024-
Ohio-4605 (2nd Dist.), ¶12. The Supreme Court of Ohio has found, “[f]or direct and
collateral attacks alike, declaratory judgment is simply not a part of the criminal appellate
or postconviction review process.” Lingo v. State, 2014-Ohio-1052, ¶44.
{¶49} In the case sub judice, the appellant filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgment
among the myriad of his postconviction filings. The trial court appropriately dismissed the
motion as the trial court is precluded from entering a declaratory judgment for a defendant
in a criminal case. As Motions for Declaratory Judgment pursuant to either R.C. Chapter
2721 and Civ.R. 57 are a civil remedy and not part of the criminal appellate or
postconviction process, the trial court did not err in dismissing the appellant’s Motion for
{¶50} The appellant’s assignment of error is overruled. CONCLUSION
{¶51} The decision of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Baldwin, P.J.
Montgomery, J. and
Popham, J. concur.