Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 01-29-2018

Case Style:


Case Number: 13-17-23

Judge: Stephen R. Shaw


Plaintiff's Attorney: Alex K. Treece

Defendant's Attorney: Stephanie J. Kiser

Description: Dahms was convicted by a jury of Breaking and Entering in violation
of R.C. 2911.13(A), a felony of the fifth degree, Bribery in violation of R.C.
2921.02(C), a felony of the third degree, Intimidation of a Witness in a Criminal
Case in violation of R.C. 2921.04(B)(2), a felony of the third degree, and Attempted
Complicity to Tampering with Evidence in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A),
2923.03(A)(1), and R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree.
{¶3} Dahms appealed his convictions and sentence to this Court in State v.
Dahms, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-16-16, 2017-Ohio-4221, arguing that, inter alia, his
convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence, that he received
ineffective assistance of trial counsel for his counsel’s purported failure to assert
that his right to a speedy trial had been violated, that the State failed to disclose
exculpatory evidence, and that the trial court gave improper post-release control
notifications. We sustained Dahms’s assignment of error related to post-release
control, finding that one of the notifications was inaccurate. However, we
thoroughly analyzed and addressed the remainder of Dahms’s arguments and his
assignments of error were overruled in all other respects. We then remanded the
case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.
{¶4} On July 10, 2017, the trial court held a “resentencing hearing” to
comply with our remand in order to properly notify Dahms regarding post-release
control. Despite this limited remand, the trial court stated that it would proceed as
though “it is a new sentencing.” (Tr. at 2). The trial court then gave the State and
the defense the opportunity to make a statement but neither elected to do so.
Afterward, the trial court then proceeded to “reimpose” the same sentence it had
already previously imposed—which was affirmed on appeal—only this time with
the proper post-release control notification. A judgment entry of “re-sentence” was
filed July 10, 2017, containing the proper post-release control notification. It is from
this judgment that Dahms appeals, asserting the following assignments of error for
our review.

Case No. 13-17-23


Assignment of Error No. 1 The trial court erred when it imposed maximum consecutive sentences as it did not make the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and the record did not contain sufficient evidence to support such findings.

Assignment of Error No. 2 The trial court violated the Defendant/Appellant’s right to fair and speedy trial in violation under the Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 10 of the Constitution of the State of Ohio.

{¶5} Due to the nature of the discussion and disposition we elect to address
the assignments of error together.
First and Second Assignments of Error
{¶6} In his first assignment of error, Dahms argues that the trial court did not
make the required findings upon “resentencing” to impose consecutive sentences.
In Dahms’s second assignment of error, he argues that his right to a speedy trial was
violated in the original proceeding.
{¶7} Before we address Dahms’s assignments of error we must emphasize
that Dahms already had a direct appeal and in that direct appeal his assignments of
error were overruled with the limited exception of one post-release control
notification that needed to be corrected. In State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92,
2010–Ohio–6238, the Supreme Court of Ohio indicated that an invalid post-release
control notification does not taint the entirety of an offender’s sentence. Instead,
“when a judge fails to impose statutorily mandated post[-]release control as part of

Case No. 13-17-23


a defendant’s sentence, [only] that part of the sentence is void and must be set
aside.” (Emphasis sic). Fischer at ¶ 26. Thus a resentencing for an improper post
release control notification “must be limited to the imposition of post
release control.” State v. Stiggers, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25486, 2011-Ohio-4225, ¶
6, citing Fischer at ¶ 27–28.
{¶8} Courts have recognized “that a trial court exceeds its sentencing
authority when it conducts a[n entire] de novo [re]sentencing to correct a post
release control error * * * [b]ecause resentencing [under those circumstances] is
limited to the imposition of post-release control, any additional action taken by the
trial court with respect to the sentence is a nullity.” Stiggers at ¶ 7, citing State v.
Cool, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 25135, 25214, 2011-Ohio-1560, ¶¶ 4-6.
{¶9} Here, Dahms’s case was remanded to the trial court only for proper
notification regarding post-release control. His convictions and sentence were
affirmed on direct appeal in all other aspects. Under cases like Stiggers, any
additional action taken by the trial court at that time was mere surplusage and was
a nullity. Thus his first assignment of error is overruled as the trial court had only
limited jurisdiction.
{¶10} As to Dahms’s second assignment of error regarding speedy trial,
Dahms actually already made an argument regarding speedy trial in his direct appeal
through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. This argument is thus now

Case No. 13-17-23


barred by res judicata. 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 proceeding, except an appeal from that judgment, any defense
or claimed lack of due process that “was raised or could have been raised by the
defendant at the trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on an appeal
from that judgment.” State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967), paragraph nine of
the syllabus. As Dahms’s claims related to his second assignment of error are barred
by res judicata, his second assignment of error is overruled.

Outcome: For the foregoing reasons the assignments of error are overruled and
the judgment of the Seneca County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2018 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.