State v. Lockhart

2021 Ohio 2418

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 15, 2021
• Docket: 20CAA070027
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Lockhart, 2021-Ohio-2418.]

COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. -vs- : : Case No. 20CAA070027 : JOHN C. LOCKHART : : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 06CRI010011

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 15, 2021

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:

MELISSA A. SCHIFFEL JOHN C. LOCKHART, PRO SE DELAWARE CO. PROSECUTOR No. 536014 MARK C. SLEEPER Allen-Oakwood Correctional Institution 145 North Union St., 3rd Floor P.O. Box 4501 Delaware, OH 43015 Lima, OH 45802 [Cite as State v. Lockhart, 2021-Ohio-2418.]

Delaney, J.

{¶1} Appellant John C. Lockhart appeals from the June 2, 2020 judgment entry

of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas overruling his motion to clarify his

sentence. Appellee is the state of Ohio.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} In 2006, appellant was indicted upon three counts of rape in violation of

R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) and three counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C.

2907.05(A)(4) arising from his assaults of a 9-year-old child. After trial by jury, appellant

was found guilty as charged and sentenced to an aggregate term of life in prison.

Appellant directly appealed from his convictions and sentences but did not challenge the

life sentence. State v. Lockhart, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 06CAA100080, 2008-Ohio-57,

appeal not allowed, 118 Ohio St.3d 1434, 2008-Ohio-2595, 887 N.E.2d 1203. This Court

affirmed appellant’s convictions and sentence. Id.

{¶3} In 2009, appellant filed a petition for habeas relief in the U.S. District Court

for the Southern District of Ohio which was denied and dismissed. Lockhart v. Welch,

No. 2:09-CV-443, 2011 WL 378905 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 2011).

{¶4} In 2011, appellant sought a writ of mandamus, which was denied by this

Court. State ex rel. Lockhart v. Whitney, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 10 CAD 12 0094, 2011-

Ohio-2023, ¶ 4. That judgment was affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court. State ex rel.

Lockhart v. Whitney, 130 Ohio St.3d 95, 2011-Ohio-4896, 955 N.E.2d 994, ¶ 3.

{¶5} In 2012, appellant filed a motion to “correct status of illegal sentence.” The

motion was overruled, a decision we affirmed in State v. Lockhart, 5th Dist. Delaware No.

13 CAA 01 0007, 2013-Ohio-3441, ¶ 10, appeal not allowed, 137 Ohio St.3d 1473, 2014- [Cite as State v. Lockhart, 2021-Ohio-2418.]

Ohio-176, 2 N.E.3d 268. In that appeal, we found appellant’s original sentence was within

the sentencing guidelines and appellant’s argument was barred by res judicata. Id., 2013-

Ohio-3441, ¶ 19.

{¶6} In 2015, appellant attempted to challenge his sentence via a state habeas

petition, which was denied. State ex rel. Lockhart v. Shelton, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-15-

1018, 2015-Ohio-1569, ¶ 10, affirmed sub nom. State ex rel. Lockhart v. Sheldon, 146

Ohio St.3d 468, 2016-Ohio-627, 58 N.E.3d 1124.

{¶7} In 2016, appellant filed a motion for resentencing which was denied by the

trial court. In 2018, appellant moved the trial court to shorten his sentence by “correcting

a clerical error.” That motion was overruled.

{¶8} The instant appeal arises from appellant’s motion to “clarify his sentence,”

arguing that the sentences for G.S.I. and rape were ordered to be served concurrently,

thus his indefinite sentence for rape should be four years to life instead of ten years to

life.

{¶9} The trial court overruled the motion by judgment entry dated June 2, 2020,

and appellant now appeals.

{¶10} Appellant raises one assignment of error:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶11} “[THE] TRIAL COURT FAILED TO NOTIFY [THE] BUREAU OF

SENTENCE COMPUTATION OF THEIR (B.O.S.C.’S) MISCALCULATION OF

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE.” [Cite as State v. Lockhart, 2021-Ohio-2418.]

ANALYSIS

{¶12} Appellant argues the trial court should have “clarified” his original sentence

by effectively shortening it. We disagree, and find appellant’s challenge to his sentence

is barred by res judicata.

{¶13} We have previously determined appellant’s challenges to his sentence are

barred by res judicata. Lockhart, supra, 2013-Ohio-3441, at ¶ 19. Under the doctrine of

res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was

represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceedings, except an appeal

from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or

could have been raised by the defendant at the trial, which resulted in that judgment or

conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment. State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112, 443

N.E.2d 169 (1982). We have no reason to revisit any of appellant’s prior appellate

litigation here.

{¶14} Further, appellant moved the trial court to compel the Bureau of Sentence

Computation to recalculate his sentence. Appellant’s motion is insufficient to compel

action by the Bureau of Sentence Computation. See, e.g., State ex rel. Arnold v. Bur. of

Sentence Computation, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-183, 2020-Ohio-2689.

{¶15} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled. [Cite as State v. Lockhart, 2021-Ohio-2418.]

CONCLUSION

{¶16} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the

Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By: Delaney, J.,

Baldwin, P.J. and

Gwin, J., concur.