[Cite as State v. Picard, 2017-Ohio-7600.]
COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. -vs- : : Case No. 17 CA 28 : JOHN S. PICARD : : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos. 2008-CR- 0545, 2009-CR-0111
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 11, 2017
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
GARY BISHOP JOHN S. PICARD, Pro Se RICHLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR Inmate No. A572767 Belmont Correctional Institution JOSEPH C. SNYDER 68518 Bannok Uniontown Rd. 38 South Park Street St. Clairsville, OH 43950 Mansfield, OH 44902 Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 2
Delaney, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant John S. Picard appeals the February 28, 2017 nunc
pro tunc sentencing entry of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} The facts as set forth in appellant's previous appeals are as follows:
{¶3} In 1990, appellant was hired as the youth pastor at the Marion Avenue
Grace Brethren Church in Mansfield, Ohio. In his position at the church, appellant and his
wife Sherry had regular contact with teenage girls and young adult females in the church.
{¶4} Appellant formed close relationships with several of the girls in the youth
group, distancing these girls from their family and friends. He referred to this smaller group
as “the family,” which was made up of appellant and his wife, several of the girls in the
youth group, and eventually the girls' husbands as the girls grew older and married. As
the leader, appellant controlled nearly every aspect of their lives. Appellant influenced
where the girls lived, who they dated or married, and what cars they purchased. Appellant
spoke of having a large piece of land where the “family” could live in a large house with
separate wings, sharing a common kitchen and dining area.
{¶5} H.G. began attending the Marion Avenue Church when she was twelve
years old and moved in with her great aunt and uncle after her parents died. She began
babysitting appellant's children when she was sixteen. When she was sixteen, she and
appellant began kissing and fondling. One night, after eating dinner with appellant's
family, H.G. went to the basement with appellant to spot him while he was working out.
Appellant had H.G. perform oral sex on him. Appellant explained to H.G. that it wasn't
sinful because it wasn't sex. On another occasion, appellant and H.G. were naked in the Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 3
bedroom of appellant's home. Appellant digitally penetrated H.G.'s vagina, but appellant's
son walked in before the encounter could go any further. H.G. left the area when she
turned eighteen, but saw appellant one last time thereafter. Appellant drove her out into
the country where they kissed and fondled each other, and H.G. performed oral sex on
appellant.
{¶6} S.S. began attending Marion Avenue Church in her sophomore year of high
school. Her mother had divorced for a second time, and she had to move in with her
father. While involved with the youth group, S.S. would run errands with appellant. On
one occasion they went for a motorcycle ride. Appellant reached between S.S.'s legs,
claiming he was switching to an alternate gas tank. Like H.G., S.S. babysat appellant's
children. On one occasion, appellant asked S.S. to stop at his house after a New Year's
Eve party. When she arrived, the house was dark. Appellant took her into the bedroom,
kissed her, pulled down her pants and touched her genital area. He asked her to say,
“Fuck me.” Tr. 215. She became afraid because she had never seen appellant behave in
such a harsh manner. She ultimately said what he asked her to say, although no
penetration occurred. On Sundays after church appellant began taking S.S. by the hand
and leading her to his office, where they would kiss and stroke each other. Appellant told
her that being a youth pastor was difficult and he was frequently under attack, and this
was a form of comfort his wife could not give him.
{¶7} During the summer of 2004, S.S. accompanied the youth group on a
mission trip. While taking the garbage to the dumpster with appellant, he unzipped his
pants and guided her head to his penis, asking her to put his penis in her mouth. He Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 4
instructed her to perform oral sex on him in the back of a truck at a later time on the same
mission trip. He told S.S. that this was something his wife could not do for him.
{¶8} S.W. was an only child from what she considered a normal family. However,
as she became more involved with appellant and Sherry through the youth group, her
relationship with her parents deteriorated. In the fall of 1995, appellant asked S.W. to kiss
him. By 1996, S.W. considered appellant to be her best friend. Appellant told her that best
friends engage in sexual acts with each other, claiming that the Bible states that Jonathan
and David were best friends who engaged in sexual behavior together. He also told S .W.
that when the Bible says a pastor should be a one-woman man, that just means he can't
be with two women at the same time. He explained to her that his job was very taxing,
and he needed her to fill him back up. Around 1996 or 1997, he asked S.W. to perform
oral sex on him in the kitchen of his home. For the next ten years, she regularly engaged
in oral sex and sexual intercourse with appellant. He told her it would be a worse sin for
her not to have sex with him than it would be to have sex with him, because God was
protecting their relationship. Sometimes when S.W. did not want to have sex with
appellant she cried, and appellant told her he liked it when she cried.
{¶9} G.R. attended the youth group at the Marion Avenue Church. She had been
sexually abused by her father. G.R. also babysat for appellant and Sherry. When G.R.
was 13 and appellant was driving her home after babysitting, he pulled into a wooded
area and asked her to perform oral sex on him. Appellant told her that he believed God
put her in his life for this special relationship because there were things Sherry could not
do for him. Appellant and G.R. began engaging in oral sex and sexual intercourse on a
weekly basis when she babysat for his children. Sometimes in his office in the church he Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 5
would place her on his lap, rub her breasts and her genital area, and have her rub his
genitals. During a game of hide and seek at a youth group overnighter at the church,
appellant found G.R. hiding in the baptismal. He had G.R. perform oral sex on him in the
baptismal. He told G.R. that he had consulted the Holy Spirit and had received peace that
his relationship with G.R. was right. He told her that giving him oral sex was her God-
given role as his comforter.
{¶10} J.F. is G.R.'s step-sister. Between the ages of 18 and 20, she began giving
appellant oral sex in his office and in a storage room at the church. In April of 1999, when
J.F. was 20 years old, she began engaging in sexual intercourse with appellant. After she
moved into her own apartment in October, 2001, she and appellant engaged in sex once
or twice a week. Appellant told her if she didn't have sex with him, he would terminate
their friendship and she would be shunned by the church. Appellant hit J.F. at times, and
threatened to tie her up if she did not comply with his request for sex. Appellant told her
that she was a special friend who had been chosen for him. He explained to her that their
relationship was not different from those in the Bible, including Jonathan and David. He
told her that in the Biblical account of the Last Supper where John leans on Jesus, it is
possible that John had contact with Jesus' genitals. He also recounted the story, where
Abraham places his hand on another man's thigh to make an oath, to support his claims
that his relationship with J.F. was Biblically sanctioned.
{¶11} L.R. was 14 years old when she began attending the church with a friend.
She admired and trusted appellant and thought of him more highly as a spiritual leader
than anyone she had ever met. She longed to be a part of the group that was close to
appellant and his wife. On one occasion when she was on the church bus alone with Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 6
appellant, he told her that he thought she was very godly, and if anything happened to
Sherry, L.R. is the kind of woman he would want for his wife. In 2004, L.R. asked to meet
with appellant to learn how to memorize Scripture. When she went to appellant's office,
he told her that things were hard and he needed comfort. He then placed L.R.'s hands on
his genitals, telling her that his wife is not a comfort to him, and L.R. is the only one he
could trust. When decorating for a wedding shower at the church, appellant pulled L.R.
into his office and asked her for oral sex. She refused. However, in September of 2004
appellant convinced L.R. to perform oral sex on him. Eventually the oral sex progressed
into sexual intercourse, and the sexual behavior continued regularly through December
of 2007. He explained that this was not adultery, telling L.R., “You were given to me by
God. You were made just for me.” Tr. 635.
{¶12} In 2005, H.G. disclosed her involvement with appellant to a pastor at her
new church. This pastor in turn relayed the allegations to the Marion Avenue church, and
H.G. was called before a council of pastors. H.G.'s claims were discounted by the church,
but the church held a series of meetings about whether to retain appellant as youth pastor.
His other victims attended these meetings, either standing in full support of appellant or
remaining silent. Many members of the church had become concerned about appellant's
close relationships with young women in the congregation, with one member referring to
the group as appellant's “harem.” Tr. 229.
{¶13} Although the congregation voted to retain appellant, he resigned from the
church and made plans to form his own church with members of his “family.” These plans
fell apart in January of 2005 when S.S. confessed her relationship with appellant to her
husband. Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 7
{¶14} Initially, police were not concerned with relationships between appellant and
the girls after they turned 18, believing them to be consensual relationships between
adults. Appellant was initially indicted in Case No. 08–CR–545 for sexual battery against
H.G. and G.R. when they were juveniles. After the nature of the control and mental and
spiritual coercion appellant exerted over the girls became apparent to police, the State
moved to amend the indictment to include offenses against H.G. and G.R. after they
turned 18, and to amend the statutory subsection in counts nine through sixteen, which
related to H.G., to allege a violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(1) rather than a violation of R.C.
2907.03(A)(9) because subsection (A)(9) was not in effect during the time period alleged
in these counts.
{¶15} Appellant was later indicted in Case No. 09–CR–111 for sexual battery
against S.W., L.R., J.F. and S.S. The cases were consolidated for trial.
{¶16} The case proceeded to a jury trial in the Richland County Common Pleas
Court. Following trial, appellant was convicted of all charges and sentenced to an
aggregate term of 40 years in prison, with 5 years mandatory post-release control. This
Court affirmed the judgment on appeal. State v. Picard, 5th Dist. Richland No.
2009CA0108, 2010–Ohio–6358 (“Picard I”).
{¶17} Appellant filed a motion to reopen his appeal, arguing that counsel was
ineffective for failing to raise a claim of insufficient evidence as to six of the eight counts
of sexual battery against H.G. We granted the motion to reopen, and upon reopening
found the evidence sufficient to support three of the eight counts of sexual battery against
H.G. We reversed the convictions on the remaining five counts and remanded to the trial Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 8
court for resentencing. State v. Picard, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2009CA0108, 2011–Ohio–
6781 (“Picard II”).
{¶18} On remand, the trial court dismissed counts twelve through sixteen of the
indictment, and resentenced appellant on counts nine through eleven. Appellant was
sentenced to five years incarceration on Count 9, to run consecutive to counts 1, 5, and
10 and to counts 1, 9, 17 and 19 of Case No. 09–CR–111. He was sentenced to five
years incarceration on Count 10, to run consecutive to counts 1, 5 and 9, and to counts
1, 9, 17 and 19 of Case No. 09–CR–111. On Count 11 he was sentenced to one year, to
run concurrent to all other charges.
{¶19} Appellant again appealed to this Court. By Opinion and Entry dated June
27, 2014, this Court affirmed the trial court's sentencing decision. State v. Picard, 5th Dist.
Richland No. 13CA95, 2014-Ohio-2924 (“Picard III”).
{¶20} On September 2, 2014, appellant filed a motion for a delayed appeal in the
Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio Supreme Court denied his motion on October 22, 2014.
{¶21} On June 4, 2014, appellant filed a motion entitled Ex Parte Motion to
Proceed to Judgment and Order, thereafter, to Vacate the Void Judgment With Prejudice.
In said motion, appellant moved the trial court to rule on the August, 2009, speedy trial
motion. The State responded, arguing that the motion was barred by res judicata. On July
16, 2014, the trial court overruled the motion, finding it to be an untimely motion for post
conviction relief (by almost five years) and barred by res judicata.
{¶22} Appellant appealed the trial court’s judgment entry. In State v. Picard, 5th
Dist. Richland No. 14 CA 65, 2015-Ohio-431 (“Picard IV”), we affirmed the trial court’s
decision that appellant’s claims were barred by res judicata. Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 9
{¶23} On April 29, 2015, appellant filed Complaint for Writ of Mandamus and/or
Procedendo requesting an order to require the trial court issue a new sentencing entry so
it would be contained in one document. The trial court originally issued separate
sentencing entries for Case No. 08-CR-545 and 09-CR-111. The sentencing entry in
Case No. 09-CR-111 ordered appellant to pay restitution to the victims for counseling as
submitted to the Richland County Clerk of Courts. The trial court issued two separate
restitution orders to represent restitution owed to separate victims in Case No. 09-CR-
111. The restitution orders, however, contained both case numbers.
{¶24} On May 18, 2015, the State filed a motion for a corrective nunc pro tunc
entry to remove the restitution from Case No. 08-CR-545 and docket restitution in only
Case No. 09-CR-111. The State requested the trial court issue nunc pro tunc judgment
entries to correct the restitution orders to reflect only Case No. 09-CR-111. On May 18,
2015, the trial court granted the State’s motion for corrective order.
{¶25} On March 14, 2016, this Court granted the writ of mandamus. Pursuant to
State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, and Crim.R. 32(C),
we found the trial court did not issue a final, appealable order because it had not issued
one single judgment entry containing the entire sentencing along with the other
requirements of Crim.R. 32. State ex rel. Picard v. Robinson, 5th Dist. Richland No.
15CA38, 2016-Ohio-1044 (“Picard V”). We remanded the matter to the trial court to
correct the sentencing entry. Id. at ¶ 12.
{¶26} On May 16, 2016, appellant filed a motion to invoke speedy sentencing and
direct appeal rights. Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 10
{¶27} On February 28, 2017, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc sentencing
entry in Case No. 09-CR-111.
{¶28} On March 13, 2017, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of
sentencing revision. Appellant argued the trial court should have been present in court
for resentencing. Appellant also argued the sentences for Case Nos. 08-CR-545 and 09-
CR-111 should have been in one sentencing entry.
{¶29} On March 27, 2017, appellant filed a notice of appeal of the February 28,
2017 nunc pro tunc sentencing entry.
{¶30} On March 30, 2017, the trial court overruled appellant’s motion for
reconsideration of sentencing revision.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶31} Picard raises ten Assignments of Error:
{¶32} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT OUTSIDE OF HIS PRESENCE VIOLATING CRIM.R. 43(A) AND HIS 14TH
AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS ARTICLE I SECTION 10 OF
OHIO’S CONSTITUTION RIGHTS.
{¶33} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS
NOT BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN THE SPEEDY TRIAL TIME FRAME CAUSING
PREJUDICE AND VIOLATING R.C. 2945.71 AND HIS 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS
OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 10 AND 16 OF
{¶34} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PROSECUTING, CONVICTING AND
SENTENCING WITHOUT SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION, INDICTMENT COUNTS Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 11
17 AND 19 (09 CR 111); VIOLATING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S 6TH AND 14TH
AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 10
AND 16 OF OHIO’S CONSTITUTION RIGHTS.
{¶35} “IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PROSECUTING, CONVICTING AND
SENTENCING FOR 5 COUNTS (08 CR 545) WITH INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE;
VIOLATING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS OF THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION AS WELL ARE ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 10 AND 16 OF OHIO’S
CONSTITUTION RIGHTS.
{¶36} “V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY PROSECUTING, CONVICTING, AND
SENTENCING FOR 17 COUNTS (09 CR 111) WITH INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE;
VIOLATING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS OF THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 10 AND 16 OF OHIO’S
{¶37} “VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING FOR CRIMES
ARISING OUT OF THE SAME CONDUCT AND ARE ALLIED OFFENSES (09 CR 111),
VIOLATING R.C. 2941.25(A) AND DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S DOUBLE JEOPARDY,
5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS ARTICLE
I, SECTION 10 OF OHIO’S CONSTITUTION RIGHTS.
{¶38} “VII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PROSECUTING, CONVICTING AND
SENTENCING FOR CRIMES IN WHICH WRONGFULLY AMENDED INDICTMENTS
INCLUDED DATES OUTSIDE OF THE DATES FILED IN THE ORIGINAL TRUE BILL
INDICTMENTS RETURNED BY THE GRAND JURY, COUNTS 1-5 AND 9-16 (08 CR
545) AS WELL AS COUNTS 17 AND 18 (09 CR 111), VIOLATING CRIM.R. 7(D), AND Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 12
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS
WELL AS ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF OHIO’S CONSTITUTION RIGHTS.
{¶39} “VIII. THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS DENIED A
FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR TRIAL, WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REPRESENTATION
FELL BELOW AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF REASONABLENESS VIOLATING HIS
6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS ARTICLE
{¶40} “IX. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT A FAIR TRIAL, WHEN ENOUGH PREJUDICE, IN CUMULATIVE EFFECT,
DENIED HIM FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS; VIOLATING HIS 14TH AMENDMENT OF
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF OHIO’S
{¶41} “X. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY THE IMPOSITION OF COURT COSTS
WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE BILLING. THE DUPLICATIVE
AND ERRONEOUS CHARGES VIOLATE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S 14TH
AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS ARTICLE I, SECTION 10
OF OHIO’S CONSTITUTION RIGHTS.”
ANALYSIS
I. Baker and Resentencing
{¶42} Appellant argues in his first Assignment of Error that the trial court erred
when it issued a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry outside his presence. Appellant contends
the trial court was required to hold a resentencing hearing with appellant present because
the issue of restitution was never determined in open court. Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 13
{¶43} The Ohio Supreme Court “has consistently regarded Crim.R. 32(C) errors
as clerical mistakes subject to nunc pro tunc corrections.” State ex rel. Snead v. Ferenc,
138 Ohio St.3d 136, 2014-Ohio-43, 4 N.E.3d 1013. In State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge, 128
Ohio St.3d 236, 2011-Ohio-235, 943 N.E.2d 535, ¶ 18, the Supreme Court held the
remedy for correcting a sentencing entry that does not comply with Crim.R. 32(C) is to
issue a corrected sentencing entry rather than conduct a new sentencing hearing. In
Burge, the Court explained the remedy was logical because the trial court and the parties
all proceeded under the presumption that the sentencing entry for the defendant
constituted a final appealable order and any failure to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) was a
mere oversight vesting the trial court with specific and limited jurisdiction to issue a new
sentencing entry to reflect what the court had previously ruled. The trial court was not to
issue a new sentencing entry reflecting what, in a judge’s successive opinion, the trial
court should have ruled. Id. at ¶ 19; see also State v. Bonnell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
96368, 2011-Ohio-5837 (finding the remedy for a technical violation of Crim.R. 32(C) is
not to have the trial court issue a final appealable order so the defendant can again appeal
his conviction, but is a corrected sentencing entry).
{¶44} This is consistent with our ruling in Picard V. In Picard V, we granted a writ
of mandamus to order the trial court to correct appellant’s sentencing entry pursuant to
Crim.R. 32(C). In its appellate brief, the State expressed concern that appellant already
obtained appellate review of his conviction and sentence. Picard V, supra at ¶ 13. We
responded, “[t]he Ohio Supreme Court concluded that [a] defendant [is] entitled to a new
sentencing entry irrespective of prior appellate review, because the original sentencing
entry did not constitute a final appealable order. Id. at ¶ 10-11, 895 N.E.2d 805.” Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 14
(Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 13 citing State ex rel. Moore v. Krichbaum, 7th Dist. Mahoning
No. 09 MA 201, 2010-Ohio-1541, ¶ 13.
{¶45} Appellant contends the issue of restitution was not discussed in open court.
Appellant was originally sentenced on September 3, 2009. The trial court ordered
appellant to pay restitution as part of his sentence. The trial court stated, “You will be
required to pay court costs or the court costs will be your responsibility, including the
victims [sic] expenses, some of which have been set out in a statement of fact and
restitution and have been signed by you and by the court today.” (Tr. VI, 989). Appellant
signed both restitution statements at the time of his sentencing.
{¶46} The trial court properly corrected the Baker violation found in Picard V with
a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry. We find appellant’s argument that he was entitled to a
new sentencing hearing is unsupported by the law and the record.
{¶47} Appellant’s first Assignment of Error is overruled.
II. – X.
{¶48} In appellant’s second through tenth Assignments of Errors, appellant raises
arguments made in Picard I, Picard II, Picard III, and Picard IV. He also raises new
arguments.
{¶49} This court has held where a trial court issues a corrected judgment entry to
comply with Crim.R. 32, a defendant who has already had the benefit of a direct appeal
cannot raise any and all claims of error in successive appeals. State v. Horn, 5th Dist.
Delaware No. 13 CAA 12 0087, 2014-Ohio-1814. We stated in State v. Harris, 5th Dist.
Richland No. 10-CA-49, 2011-Ohio-1626, that where an appellant attempts to re-litigate
multiple claims from his original conviction and raise new claims, “we do not find this to Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 15
be the intent of the Supreme Court in Baker.” In such circumstances, res judicata remains
applicable and the defendant is not entitled to a second bite at the apple. Horn, supra at
¶ 11 citing State v. Bonnell, supra. A nunc pro tunc entry issued solely for the purpose of
complying with Crim.R. 32 applies retrospectively to the judgment it corrects and is not a
new final appealable order. State v. Miley, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2011 CA 0005, 2011-
Ohio-5647; State v. Griffin, 138 Ohio St.3d 108, 2013-Ohio-5481, 4 N.E.3d 989, ¶ 49
(holding res judicata precludes a litigant from using a resentencing entry issued pursuant
to Baker to litigate an issue when that defendant has already litigated or could have
litigated the issue on direct appeal).
{¶50} The trial court originally sentenced appellant in 2009. Appellant filed a direct
appeal of his conviction and raised seven assignments of error. As to appellant’s
sentence, appellant only argued the trial court erred in convicting and sentencing him on
duplicative counts. The court exercised jurisdiction over his appeal and affirmed his
conviction and sentence. Appellant successfully reopened his appeal based on ineffective
assistance of counsel. He raised two assignments of error arguing there was insufficient
evidence to convict appellant of multiple counts of sexual battery. We found the record
supported convictions on only three counts of sexual battery and remanded the matter to
the trial court for resentencing. Appellant appealed the resentencing. We affirmed.
Appellant appealed and raised six assignments of error arguing the trial court’s denial of
appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief was in error. We affirmed. Appellant filed a
writ of mandamus regarding the sentencing entries, which we granted.
{¶51} The record in this case shows appellant has had a full opportunity to litigate
all issues relating to his conviction and sentence, and his substantive rights were not Richland County, Case No. 17CA28 16
prejudiced in any way. We find appellant’s arguments are barred by the doctrine of res
judicata.
{¶52} Appellant’s second through tenth Assignments of Errors are overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶53} The judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Delaney, P.J.,
Gwin, J. and
Hoffman, J., concur.