State v. Thompson

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Thompson, 2004-Ohio-4511.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee vs. : : C.A. CASE NO. 2003-CA-95 T.C. CASE NO. 96CR0469 KENNETH THOMPSON : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 27th day of August, 2004. . . . . . . . . . Stephen A. Schumaker, Pros. Attorney; Stephen Collins, Asst. Pros. Attorney, 50 East Columbia Street, Springfield, Ohio 45502, Atty. Reg. No. 0047502 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee Kenneth Thompson, #339-301, Chillicothe Correctional Institute, P.O. Box 5500, Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se . . . . . . . . . GRADY, J. {¶1} Defendant, Kenneth Thompson, appeals from an order of the court of common pleas overruling Thompson s motion to modify his sentence. {¶2} multiple In December of 1996, Thompson was convicted of felony offenses and was sentenced to serve a twelve-year term of imprisonment. Thompson 2 subsequently filed several motions to reduce his sentence, which were overruled. We affirmed Thompson s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. State v. Thompson (Oct. 22, 1999), Clark App. No. 98-CA-100. {¶3} On November 19, 2003, motion to modify his sentence. Thompson filed another Thompson argued that the trial court erred when it imposed his sentence absent the particular statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14 with respect to it and the pronouncement of those findings the court is now required to make. St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165. motion without comment. See State v. Comer, 99 Ohio The trial court overruled the Thompson filed a timely notice of appeal from that order. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶4} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED IT [sic] DISCRETION WHEN IT GAVE NO FACTS OR FINDINGS OF [sic] CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TO SUPPORT THE OVERRULING OF APPELLANTS [sic] MOTION TO MODIFY HIS SENTENCE. SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶5} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED IT [sic] DISCRETION WHEN [sic] NOT CONSIDERING DEFENDANTS [sic] MOTION TO MODIFY HIS SENTENCE. {¶6} The judgment of conviction and sentence that the 3 trial court entered and journalized in December of 1996 was a final order that terminated the trial court s jurisdiction in the proceeding in which it was entered. The motion that Thompson to court s filed in 2003 jurisdiction to was insufficient grant the relief it revive the sought, a modification of his sentence, absent some specific basis in law. {¶7} imposed A court s jurisdiction to modify a sentence it has may concerns be invoked sentences pursuant imposed for to R.C. 2929.51, misdemeanor which offenses. Thompson s offenses were felonies, for which no provision similar to R.C. 2929.51 exists. {¶8} A court s jurisdiction to modify a sentence may also be revived by an App.R. 27 mandate of an appellate court requiring a trial court to impose a new sentence after a sentence has been vacated. Our prior review of Thompson s first appeal produced no such mandate. {¶9} We conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief Thompson sought in the criminal sentence. proceeding that resulted in his conviction and The further question is whether his motion to modify his sentence invoked new jurisdiction the court is authorized by law to modify. {¶10} Thompson argues that the trial court erred when it denied his requires motion when a absent the petition R.C. 4 2953.41 post-conviction relief hearing for that authorized by that section is filed, unless the court finds that the relief. petition presents no substantive The court made no such findings. grounds for However, it was not required to. {¶11} Thompson s application was not styled or fashioned as an R.C. substance. 2953.41 petition, in either its form or Neither did it address the time bar in R.C. 2953.21 applicable to any such petition Thompson could file. The trial court did not err when it overruled Thompson s motion as it did. {¶12} Otherwise, if Thompson s motion sought to invoke the court s jurisdiction in a new proceeding, the relief it sought is barred by res judicata. The error alleged could have been raised in his prior appeal but was not. Thompson may not now raise it in either a new appellate proceeding or in a new proceeding in the trial court seeking relief from the effect of the error alleged. Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St. 3d 379. {¶13} The assignments of error are overruled. The judgment from which the appeal is taken will be affirmed. . . . . . . . . . . FAIN, P.J. and BROGAN, J., concur. 5 Copies mailed to: Stephen Collins, Esq. Kenneth Thompson Hon. Gerald F. Lorig

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.