[Cite as State v. Ramsey, 2024-Ohio-2000.]
COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : Hon. Andrew J. King, J. -vs- : : Case No. 23CA61 : RASHAUN RAMSEY : : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2014CR0343
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 23, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
JODIE M. SCHUMACHER RASHAUNE RAMSEY RICHLAND CO. PROSECUTOR Inmate No. A660750 38 South Park St., Second Floor South Eastern Correctional Institution Mansfield, OH 44902 5900 Bis Road SW Lancaster, OH 43130 Richland County, Case No. 23CA61 2
Delaney, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant Rashaune Ramsey appeals from the October 2, 2023 “Order
Overruling Defendant’s Pending Motion” of the Richland County Court of Common
Pleas.1 Appellee is the state of Ohio and did not appear.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} A statement of the facts underlying appellant’s criminal convictions is not
necessary to our resolution of this appeal. A complete review of the facts may be found
in our opinion at State v. Ramsey, 5th Dist. Richland No. 14CA90, 2015-Ohio-4812,
appeal not allowed, 145 Ohio St.3d 1424, 2016-Ohio-1173, 47 N.E.3d 168, and habeas
corpus dismissed, Ramsey v. Larose, N.D.Ohio No. 1:17-CV-545, 2020 WL 1434498
[Ramsey I].
{¶3} Appellant was indicted upon one count of rape in violation of R.C.
2907.02(A)(2), a felony of the first degree, two counts of kidnapping in violation of R.C.
2905.01(A)(3) and (4), felonies of the first degree, one count of possession of heroin in
violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) & (C)(6)(a), a felony of the fifth degree, one count of
possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) & (C)(4)(a), a felony of the fifth
degree, and one count of failure of sexually oriented offender to notify of change of
address in violation of R.C. 2950.05(F)(1), a felony of the first degree. The indictment
included sexually-violent predator specifications with respect to the rape and kidnapping
counts, sexual motivation specifications with respect to the kidnapping counts, and
forfeiture specifications with respect to the drug possession counts. Appellant entered
pleas of not guilty.
1 Appellant spells his name “Rashaune,” but it appears in the court record as “Rashaun.” Richland County, Case No. 23CA61 3
{¶4} On July 21, 2014, appellant filed a motion asking that the sexually-violent
predator and sexual-motivation specifications be tried to the court. Pursuant to a
Judgment Entry filed on July 31, 2014, the trial court granted such motion.
{¶5} The matter proceeded to trial by jury and appellant was found guilty as
charged on all counts.
{¶6} On August 12, 2014, the trial court heard evidence on the sexually-violent
predator specifications attached to the rape and kidnapping counts and the sexual-
motivation specifications attached to the kidnapping counts. The trial court, as
memorialized in Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed on August 20, 2014, found
appellant guilty of the sexual-motivation specification attached to Count II (kidnapping)
and guilty of the sexual predator specifications attached to Count 1 (rape) and Count II
(kidnapping). The trial court further found appellant not guilty of the sexual-motivation
specifications as attached to Count III (kidnapping) and found that the sexually-violent
predator specification did not apply to such count.
{¶7} Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate prison sentence of twenty-five
(25) years to life. Appellant appealed his convictions and sentence in Ramsey I, supra,
in which we overruled his six assignments of error and affirmed the convictions and
sentence. Ramsey I, 2015-Ohio-4812.
{¶8} Relevant to the instant appeal, on September 25, 2023, appellant filed a
motion for the trial court “to dispose of pending specifications in open court proceedings
and to provide defendant with a final appealable order.” Specifically, appellant argued
the trial court did not find him guilty or not guilty of the specifications attached to Count III
of the indictment, kidnapping. Richland County, Case No. 23CA61 4
{¶9} The trial court overruled the motion by judgment entry dated October 2,
2023, noting its “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Specifications” filed
August 14, 2014, noted appellant was found not guilty of the sexual-motivation
specification and further found the sexually-violence predator specification did not apply
to the charge absent the finding of a sexual motivation.
{¶10} Appellant now appeals from the trial court’s judgment entry of October 2,
2023.
{¶11} Appellant raises one assignment of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶12} “THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND DENIED
APPELLANT OF HIS FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO EQUAL
PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION, AND IN A CAPRICIOUS AND ARBITRARY MANNER BY DENYING
HIS MOTION FOR TRIAL COURT TO DISPOSE OF ALL PENDING SPECIFICATIONS
IN OPEN COURT PROCEEDINGS AND TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A FINAL,
APPEALABLE ORDER PURSUANT TO CRIM.R. 32(C), WITH DE NOVO SENTENCING
HEARING REQUESTED.”
ANALYSIS
{¶13} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court has not
provided him with resolution of all “pending” specifications via a final appealable order
and has erred in not doing so. We disagree. Richland County, Case No. 23CA61 5
{¶14} We begin by noting the trial court’s “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law Regarding Specifications” dated August 20, 2014, states the following in pertinent
part:
* * * *.
The Court finds the Defendant not guilty of the sexual
motivation specification as attached to Count III of the indictment.
The Court finds that the jury found the Defendant guilty of kidnapping
the victim in Count III not for the purpose of sexual activity like in
Count II, but for the purpose of terrorizing the victim. The Defendant
caused terror to the victim in Count III by forcing her to come to his
home and then interrogating her about working with the police and
making her feel that she would not be hurt if she tried to leave the
residence (sic). Accordingly the Court finds that the kidnapping
offense in Count III was not done with sexual motivation by the
offender, but instead with the purpose to terrorize her.
Because the Court finds the Defendant not guilty of the
sexually motivation specification as attached to Count III, the Court
finds that the sexual violent predator specification attached to Count
III cannot, by definition apply to the Defendant under Ohio Law.
Therefore, as to Count III only, the Court finds that the sexually
violent predator specification does not apply pursuant to R.C.
2917.01(I).
* * * *. Richland County, Case No. 23CA61 6
{¶15} A specification in an indictment “is merely a sentencing provision that
requires an enhanced penalty upon certain findings,” a “sentence enhancement that
attaches to a predicate offense. State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398, 2011-Ohio-765, 945
N.E.2d 498, ¶ 16. In the instant case, the trial court found appellant not guilty of the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Ramsey, 2024-Ohio-2000.]
COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : Hon. Andrew J. King, J. -vs- : : Case No. 23CA61 : RASHAUN RAMSEY : : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2014CR0343
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 23, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
JODIE M. SCHUMACHER RASHAUNE RAMSEY RICHLAND CO. PROSECUTOR Inmate No. A660750 38 South Park St., Second Floor South Eastern Correctional Institution Mansfield, OH 44902 5900 Bis Road SW Lancaster, OH 43130 Richland County, Case No. 23CA61 2
Delaney, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant Rashaune Ramsey appeals from the October 2, 2023 “Order
Overruling Defendant’s Pending Motion” of the Richland County Court of Common
Pleas.1 Appellee is the state of Ohio and did not appear.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} A statement of the facts underlying appellant’s criminal convictions is not
necessary to our resolution of this appeal. A complete review of the facts may be found
in our opinion at State v. Ramsey, 5th Dist. Richland No. 14CA90, 2015-Ohio-4812,
appeal not allowed, 145 Ohio St.3d 1424, 2016-Ohio-1173, 47 N.E.3d 168, and habeas
corpus dismissed, Ramsey v. Larose, N.D.Ohio No. 1:17-CV-545, 2020 WL 1434498
[Ramsey I].
{¶3} Appellant was indicted upon one count of rape in violation of R.C.
2907.02(A)(2), a felony of the first degree, two counts of kidnapping in violation of R.C.
2905.01(A)(3) and (4), felonies of the first degree, one count of possession of heroin in
violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) & (C)(6)(a), a felony of the fifth degree, one count of
possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) & (C)(4)(a), a felony of the fifth
degree, and one count of failure of sexually oriented offender to notify of change of
address in violation of R.C. 2950.05(F)(1), a felony of the first degree. The indictment
included sexually-violent predator specifications with respect to the rape and kidnapping
counts, sexual motivation specifications with respect to the kidnapping counts, and
forfeiture specifications with respect to the drug possession counts. Appellant entered
pleas of not guilty.
1 Appellant spells his name “Rashaune,” but it appears in the court record as “Rashaun.” Richland County, Case No. 23CA61 3
{¶4} On July 21, 2014, appellant filed a motion asking that the sexually-violent
predator and sexual-motivation specifications be tried to the court. Pursuant to a
Judgment Entry filed on July 31, 2014, the trial court granted such motion.
{¶5} The matter proceeded to trial by jury and appellant was found guilty as
charged on all counts.
{¶6} On August 12, 2014, the trial court heard evidence on the sexually-violent
predator specifications attached to the rape and kidnapping counts and the sexual-
motivation specifications attached to the kidnapping counts. The trial court, as
memorialized in Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed on August 20, 2014, found
appellant guilty of the sexual-motivation specification attached to Count II (kidnapping)
and guilty of the sexual predator specifications attached to Count 1 (rape) and Count II
(kidnapping). The trial court further found appellant not guilty of the sexual-motivation
specifications as attached to Count III (kidnapping) and found that the sexually-violent
predator specification did not apply to such count.
{¶7} Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate prison sentence of twenty-five
(25) years to life. Appellant appealed his convictions and sentence in Ramsey I, supra,
in which we overruled his six assignments of error and affirmed the convictions and
sentence. Ramsey I, 2015-Ohio-4812.
{¶8} Relevant to the instant appeal, on September 25, 2023, appellant filed a
motion for the trial court “to dispose of pending specifications in open court proceedings
and to provide defendant with a final appealable order.” Specifically, appellant argued
the trial court did not find him guilty or not guilty of the specifications attached to Count III
of the indictment, kidnapping. Richland County, Case No. 23CA61 4
{¶9} The trial court overruled the motion by judgment entry dated October 2,
2023, noting its “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Specifications” filed
August 14, 2014, noted appellant was found not guilty of the sexual-motivation
specification and further found the sexually-violence predator specification did not apply
to the charge absent the finding of a sexual motivation.
{¶10} Appellant now appeals from the trial court’s judgment entry of October 2,
2023.
{¶11} Appellant raises one assignment of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶12} “THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND DENIED
APPELLANT OF HIS FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO EQUAL
PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION, AND IN A CAPRICIOUS AND ARBITRARY MANNER BY DENYING
HIS MOTION FOR TRIAL COURT TO DISPOSE OF ALL PENDING SPECIFICATIONS
IN OPEN COURT PROCEEDINGS AND TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A FINAL,
APPEALABLE ORDER PURSUANT TO CRIM.R. 32(C), WITH DE NOVO SENTENCING
HEARING REQUESTED.”
ANALYSIS
{¶13} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court has not
provided him with resolution of all “pending” specifications via a final appealable order
and has erred in not doing so. We disagree. Richland County, Case No. 23CA61 5
{¶14} We begin by noting the trial court’s “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law Regarding Specifications” dated August 20, 2014, states the following in pertinent
part:
* * * *.
The Court finds the Defendant not guilty of the sexual
motivation specification as attached to Count III of the indictment.
The Court finds that the jury found the Defendant guilty of kidnapping
the victim in Count III not for the purpose of sexual activity like in
Count II, but for the purpose of terrorizing the victim. The Defendant
caused terror to the victim in Count III by forcing her to come to his
home and then interrogating her about working with the police and
making her feel that she would not be hurt if she tried to leave the
residence (sic). Accordingly the Court finds that the kidnapping
offense in Count III was not done with sexual motivation by the
offender, but instead with the purpose to terrorize her.
Because the Court finds the Defendant not guilty of the
sexually motivation specification as attached to Count III, the Court
finds that the sexual violent predator specification attached to Count
III cannot, by definition apply to the Defendant under Ohio Law.
Therefore, as to Count III only, the Court finds that the sexually
violent predator specification does not apply pursuant to R.C.
2917.01(I).
* * * *. Richland County, Case No. 23CA61 6
{¶15} A specification in an indictment “is merely a sentencing provision that
requires an enhanced penalty upon certain findings,” a “sentence enhancement that
attaches to a predicate offense. State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398, 2011-Ohio-765, 945
N.E.2d 498, ¶ 16. In the instant case, the trial court found appellant not guilty of the
sexual-motivation specification attached to Count III of the indictment, and further found
that the absence of sexual motivation meant the sexually-violent predator specification
did not apply to that offense.
{¶16} The trial court journalized its decision regarding the specifications attached
to Count III on August 20, 2014. To journalize a decision means that certain formal
requirements have been met, i.e., the decision is reduced to writing, a judge signs it, and
it is filed with the clerk so that it may become a part of the permanent record of the court.
State v. McDowell, 150 Ohio App.3d 413, 2002-Ohio-6712, 781 N.E.2d 1057, ¶ 7 (7th
Dist.), citing State v. Ellington, 36 Ohio App.3d 76, 78, 521 N.E.2d 504 (9th Dist.1987).
{¶17} The trial court’s Sentencing Entry filed on August 22, 2014, constituted a
final, appealable order because it set forth the fact of appellant’s convictions, the
sentence, the judge's signature, and the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal
by the clerk. State ex rel. Jones v. Ansted, 131 Ohio St.3d 125, 2012-Ohio-109, 961
N.E.2d 192, ¶ 2, citing State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d
142, paragraph one of the syllabus; see also State ex rel. Lockhart v. Whitney, 130 Ohio
St.3d 95, 2011-Ohio-4896, 955 N.E.2d 994, ¶ 2; State v. Ford, 128 Ohio St.3d 398, 2011-
Ohio-765, 945 N.E.2d 498, ¶ 17 (“firearm specification is merely a sentence
enhancement, not a separate criminal offense”). Richland County, Case No. 23CA61 7
{¶18} We find the trial court adequately resolved and journalized its findings as to
the specifications on Count III in 2014. Even if we were to find the trial court erred in
failing to resolve a specification, such error would constitute a sentencing error to be
addressed on direct appeal. Ansted, supra, citing State ex rel. Cunningham v. Lindeman,
126 Ohio St.3d 481, 2010-Ohio-4388, 935 N.E.2d 393, ¶ 1. Appellant did not raise the
alleged error in Ramsey I.
{¶19} The doctrine of res judicata provides that any issue that could have been
raised on direct appeal, and was not, is barred in later proceedings and not subject to
review. State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006–Ohio–1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 16.
Because any non-void sentencing errors are required to be raised on direct appeal,
appellant is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from raising any alleged errors in any
manner other than direct appeal. State v. Hill, 5th Dist. Licking No. 15-CA-13, 2016-Ohio-
1214, ¶ 16.
{¶20} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled. Richland County, Case No. 23CA61 8
CONCLUSION
{¶21} Appellant’s assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the
Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Delaney, P.J.,
Wise, J. and
King, J., concur.