[Cite as State v. Rarden,
2019-Ohio-2161.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2018-12-230
: OPINION
- vs - 6/3/2019
:
LONNIE RARDEN, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2006-07-1271
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, John C. Heinkel, Government
Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee
Lonnie Rarden, A547085, London Correctional Institution, 1580 State Route 56 SW,
London, Ohio 43140, appellant pro se
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Lonnie Rarden, appeals the decision of the Butler County Court of
Common Pleas denying his motions to correct the alleged "illegal sentences" imposed by
the trial court following his 2006 conviction for escape, retaliation, complicity to tampering
with evidence, menacing by stalking, two counts of complicity to perjury, and 17 counts of
violating a protection order. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
Butler CA2018-12-230
{¶ 2} On August 2, 2006, the Butler County Grand Jury returned an indictment in
Case No. CR2006-07-1271 charging Rarden with escape. Shortly thereafter, on
September 20, 2006, the Butler County Grand Jury returned an additional indictment in
Case No. CR2006-09-1593 charging Rarden with retaliation, complicity to tampering with
evidence, menacing by stalking, two counts of complicity to perjury, and 17 counts of
violating a protection order. The trial court joined the two cases by entry filed on October
13, 2006.
{¶ 3} On March 21, 2007, a jury found Rarden guilty of all charges in both Case No.
CR2006-07-1271 and Case No. CR2006-09-1593. The trial court then sentenced Rarden
to serve a total of 26-and-one-half-years in prison. This court affirmed Rarden's conviction
and sentence on direct appeal and the Ohio Supreme Court declined review. State v.
Rarden, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2007-03-077 (Apr. 21, 2008) (Accelerated Calendar
Judgment Entry), appeal not accepted, State v. Rarden, 125 Ohio St.3d 1416, 2010-Ohio-
1893.
{¶ 4} On February 14, 2008, shortly before this court issued its decision on
Rarden's direct appeal, Rarden filed a motion requesting the trial court vacate his prison
sentence. In support of this motion, Rarden argued the trial court had improperly excluded
evidence from trial. Construing the motion as a petition for postconviction relief, the trial
court denied Rarden's petition as untimely. Rarden did not appeal from the trial court's
decision.
{¶ 5} On March 26, 2010, Rarden filed another motion requesting the trial court
vacate his prison sentence. In support of this motion, Rarden argued he was not properly
informed of his postrelease control obligations. Finding merit to Rarden's claim, the trial
court held a resentencing hearing and properly advised Rarden of postrelease control. This
court affirmed the trial court's decision and the Ohio Supreme Court again declined review.
-2-
Butler CA2018-12-230
State v. Rarden, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2010-04-095, CA2010-05-106 and CA2010-05-
126 (Feb. 11, 2007) (Accelerated Calendar Judgment Entry), appeal not accepted, State v.
Rarden, 130 Ohio St.3d 1497,
2011-Ohio-6556.
{¶ 6} On April 10, 2013, Rarden filed yet another motion requesting the trial court
vacate his prison sentence. Just as it had done for his 2010 motion, the trial court construed
Rarden's motion as a petition for postconviction relief and denied the petition as untimely.
The trial court also found Rarden's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. This
court affirmed the trial court's decision and the Ohio Supreme Court declined review. State
v. Rarden, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-07-125, 2014-Ohio-564, appeal not accepted,
State v. Rarden,
139 Ohio St.3d 1407,
2014-Ohio-2245.
{¶ 7} On September 16, 2015, Rarden filed a motion requesting the trial court "void"
the five-year prison sentence imposed in Case No. CR2006-07-1271 for his conviction of
escape. Rarden also requested the trial court "void" his convictions for complicity to perjury
and tampering with evidence in Case No. CR2006-09-1593. The trial court denied Rarden's
motion upon finding his claims were again barred by the doctrine of res judicata. This court
affirmed the trial court's decision and the Ohio Supreme Court again declined review. State
v. Rarden, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-12-214, 2016-Ohio-3108, appeal not accepted,
State v. Rarden,
146 Ohio St.3d 1515,
2016-Ohio-7199.
{¶ 8} On December 11, 2017, Rarden filed a motion requesting the trial court
resentence him to correct the alleged "illegal sentence(s)" imposed in both Case No.
CR2006-07-1271 and Case No. CR2006-09-1593. The trial court summarily denied
Rarden's motion upon finding it was "not well taken." This court affirmed the trial court's
decision in State v. Rarden, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-03-044, 2018-Ohio-4487. In so
holding, this court specifically stated that "Rarden's sentence is not void, nor contrary to
law" and that "[r]es judicata applies to the lawful elements of his ensuing sentence."
Id. at
-3-
Butler CA2018-12-230
¶ 25. The Ohio Supreme Court thereafter declined review. State v. Rarden, __ Ohio St.3d
__, 2019-Ohio-601.
{¶ 9} On March 19, 2018, Rarden filed identical motions in Case Nos. CR2006-07-
1271 and CR2006-09-1593 requesting the trial court correct the alleged "illegal sentences"
imposed in both cases. In support of his motions, Rarden argued the five-year prison
sentence imposed in Case No. CR2006-07-1271 for his conviction of escape was improper
since the trial court "sentenced him under the wrong case number and then ran consecutive
sentences to that wrong case number rendering his sentences null, void and contrary to
law."
{¶ 10} On November 13, 2018, while his two other motions were still pending,
Rarden filed an additional motion requesting the trial court correct the alleged "void" 21-
and-one-half-year prison sentence imposed in Case No. CR2006-09-1593 for his conviction
of retaliation, complicity to tampering with evidence, menacing by stalking, two counts of
complicity to perjury, and 17 counts of violating a protection order. In support of this
additional motion, Rarden argued the sentence was "grossly disproportionate" to that of his
codefendant, thereby rendering it "null and void."
{¶ 11} On November 28, 2018, the trial court issued two separate decisions denying
all three of Rarden's motions upon finding his claims were barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. Approximately three months later, on February 13, 2019, the trial court issued a
nunc pro tunc decision. The trial court's nunc pro tunc decision remedied a clerical error in
its two prior decisions that incorrectly referenced Rarden's September 16, 2015 motion to
"void" the sentences imposed in both Case No. CR2006-07-1271 and Case No. CR2006-
09-1593 rather than his November 13, 2018 motion to "void" only the sentence imposed in
-4-
Butler CA2018-12-230
Case No. CR2006-09-1593.1
{¶ 12} Rarden now appeals, raising two assignment of error for review.
{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 14} A TRIAL COURT CANNOT SENTENCE A DEFENDANT UNDER THE
WRONG CASE NUMBER.
{¶ 15} In his first assignment of error, Rarden argues the trial court's five-year prison
sentence imposed in Case No. CR2006-07-1271 for his conviction of escape must be
reversed and vacated because the trial court sentenced him under the wrong case number.
Rarden supports this claim by noting the sentencing hearing transcript where the trial court
is credited with stating it was sentencing him to five years in prison for escape under Case
No. CR2006-07-1227 rather than under CR2006-07-1271. Therefore, according to Rarden,
this single alleged misstatement renders his sentence void and mandates reversal. We find
no merit to Rarden's claim.
{¶ 16} Addressing the merits of Rarden's claim, thereby ignoring the clear application
of the doctrine of res judicata, we agree that the sentencing hearing transcript indicates the
trial court improperly referenced Case No. CR2006-07-1227 rather than CR2006-07-1271.
But, the trial court's sentencing entry makes no reference to that case number in the case
caption or in the body of the entry. The trial court's sentencing entry instead correctly
references only Case No. CR2006-07-1271. Therefore, even assuming the trial court did
make such a misstatement at the sentencing hearing, "[i]t is well-established that a court
speaks only through its journal entries and not by oral pronouncement or through
1. We note that after the notice of appeal was filed in this case, Rarden has filed yet another motion in the trial
court to correct the alleged "illegal sentences" imposed in both Case No. CR2006-07-1271 and Case No.
CR2006-09-1593. In support, Rarden argued the 26-and-one-half-year prison sentence imposed by the trial
court must be reversed because he did not "knowingly, or intelligently waive his right to counsel." Rarden
also argued the sentences must be reversed because the trial court "failed to substantially comply with Crim.R.
44(A) and (C) before allowing [him] to proceed to trial in Pro Se[.]"
-5-
Butler CA2018-12-230
decisions."2 State v. Halsey, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-10-211, 2015-Ohio-3405, ¶ 14.
Rarden's claim otherwise lacks merit.
{¶ 17} When taken in context, we find the trial court's supposed reference to Case
No. CR2006-07-1227 rather than CR2006-07-1271 was nothing more than a slip of the
tongue that in no way renders any portion of Rarden's 26-and-one-half-year prison sentence
void. "[I]f the sentencing court had jurisdiction and statutory authority to act, sentencing
errors do not render the sentence void and the sentence can be set aside only if
successfully challenged on direct appeal." State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403, 2016-
Ohio-7658, ¶ 23. The trial court in this case clearly had jurisdiction to impose the sentences
that it did in both Case No. CR2006-07-1271 and Case No. CR2006-09-1593. Therefore,
assuming such a misstatement in fact occurred, Rarden's first assignment of error lacks
merit and is overruled.
{¶ 18} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 19} A TRIAL COURT CANNOT SENTENCE A DEFENDANT TO
INCONSISTENT, OR GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE SENTENCES.
{¶ 20} In his second assignment of error, Rarden argues the trial court's decision
sentencing him to 26-and-one-half-years in prison must be reversed because the sentence
was inconsistent and grossly disproportionate to that of his codefendant. But, just as his
challenges to the trial court's sentencing decision raised in 2013, 2015, and 2017, Rarden's
most recent challenge is also barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Rarden could have,
and in some cases actually did, raise these same arguments as part of his direct appeal
and repeated postconviction motions. See State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 161
(1997) ("a defendant cannot raise an issue in a motion for postconviction relief if he or she
2. Due to the similarities in Case Nos. CR2006-07-1227 and CR2006-07-1271 we find it more likely that the
trial court's alleged misstatement was merely a typographical error by the transcriptionist.
-6-
Butler CA2018-12-230
could have raised the issue on direct appeal").
{¶ 21} Rarden argues his sentence must be reversed and vacated because the
sheriff's deputy who escorted him out of the courtroom following his sentencing hearing
allegedly said to him "are you fucking kidding me, did he just give you twenty-six and a half
years for that bull shit[?]" Rarden also claims a "records officer" expressed surprise by the
length of his sentence allegedly stating to him, "who did you piss off[?]" Rarden further
claims that "judges and ex-judges" are always approaching his "family members who work
in the judicial system" claiming he was "railroaded" when considering "'murders (sic) and
rapist (sic) don't get that long of sentences." Therefore, when considering the alleged shock
exhibited by these third parties, Rarden claims the trial court's sentencing decision was
improper and must be vacated. We disagree.
{¶ 22} Even assuming Rarden's claims are true, which we highly doubt that they are,
the fact that some third parties are surprised by the length of the sentence imposed by the
trial court is neither grounds for reversal nor does it render the sentence void. Rarden is
essentially arguing that the trial court's sentencing decision constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment. But, as this court has previously found, the 26-and-one-half-year prison
sentence imposed by the trial court was within the permissible statutory range for each of
the offenses for which he was convicted. "[A] sentence within statutory limitations is not
excessive and does not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment." State v. Bosman, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2001-05-101, 2002 Ohio App.
LEXIS 85, *3 (Jan. 14, 2002).
{¶ 23} Moreover, contrary to Rarden's claim, there is also "no requirement that co-
defendants receive equal sentences." State v. Isreal, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2010-07-170,
2011-Ohio-1474, ¶ 70, citing State v. Hall, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-302, 2009-Ohio-
5712, ¶ 9. Rather, consistent sentences are derived from the trial court's "proper application
-7-
Butler CA2018-12-230
of the statutory sentencing guidelines." State v. Micomonaco, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-
07-139, 2012-Ohio-5239, ¶ 49. The record is clear that the trial court properly considered
the necessary sentencing factors and guidelines found in both R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12
prior to issuing its sentencing decision in this case. This is true despite Rarden's repeated
assertions otherwise.
{¶ 24} No matter how many times Rarden moves the trial court to reverse and vacate
his sentence, nor how many different arguments Rarden can conjure up while awaiting his
26-and-one-half-year prison sentence to end, the fact remains that the sentence imposed
by the trial court is neither void nor contrary to law. Again, as this court has already found,
"Rarden's sentence is not void, nor contrary to law" and "[r]es judicata applies to the lawful
elements of his ensuing sentence." Rarden, 2018-Ohio-4487 at ¶ 25. Therefore, finding
no merit to any of the arguments raised herein, Rarden's second assignment of error lacks
merit and is overruled.
{¶ 25} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.
-8-
