The trial court overruled appellant's motion for satisfaction of judgment, in which he challenged the Bureau of Sentence Computation's calculation that his sentence will not expire until August 2024. The Ohio Supreme Court has twice ruled that the BSC's determination is correct. Judgment affirmed.
.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 28978
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 1986-CR-2584
:
RONALD G. JOHNSON : (Criminal Appeal from
: Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 30th day of April, 2021.
...........
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR. by JAMIE J. RIZZO, Atty. Reg. No. 0099218, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division,
Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio
45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
RONALD G. JOHNSON, #A518-770, 2240 Hubbard Road, Youngstown, Ohio 44505
Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se
.............
HALL, J.
-2-
{¶ 1} On June 29, 2020, Ronald G. Johnson filed a “Motion for Satisfaction of
Judgment,” contending that his prison sentence had been completely served in June 2018
and that the August 2024 completion date calculated by the Bureau of Sentence
Computation (BSC) was incorrect. On November 23, 2020, the trial court overruled the
motion. Johnson appeals.
{¶ 2} In his brief, Johnson lists two assignments of error. First, he asserts that it
was “plain error” for the trial court to overrule his motion for satisfaction of judgment.
Second, he states that res judicata cannot be used to prevent relief from a void judgment,
again indicating that it was plain error for the trial court to deny relief. We overrule the
assignments of error. As further detailed herein, it was not error at all, let alone plain error,
for the trial court to overrule Johnson’s motion, which challenged BSC’s calculation that
his maximum sentence will not expire until August 2024. Furthermore, Johnson’s
contention that res judicata does not apply is based on the assertion that the judgment
that his maximum sentence will not expire until August 2020 is void. The judgment is not
void; in fact, it is an existing and final judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court.
{¶ 3} This is at least the eighth case in the Ohio Supreme Court, in this court, and
in two other courts of appeals in which Johnson has contended that the BSC incorrectly
calculated that his maximum prison sentence will not expire until August 2024. We have
twice previously ruled against Johnson, concluding that the Supreme Court has held the
BSC calculation is correct, and we cannot alter a conclusion made by the Supreme Court.
See State v. Johnson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28162,
2019-Ohio-1801
; State v.
Johnson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28503,
2020-Ohio-1307
. (“the trial court had no
-3-
authority to address BSC's calculation of Johnson's sentence.”). Johnson cannot simply
change the title of his motion to obtain a different result.
{¶ 4} In Johnson v. Moore,
, the Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that Johnson's
sentence had been properly calculated and that his maximum prison term will not expire
until 2024. Neither the trial court nor this court can change the Supreme Court’s holdings.
{¶ 5} The assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 6} The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
.............
DONOVAN, J. and EPLEY, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Mathias H. Heck, Jr.
Jamie J. Rizzo
Ronald G. Johnson
Hon. Gregory F. Singer
