[Cite as State v. Artis,
2021-Ohio-2296.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
LOGAN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 8-21-12
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
TYRELL E. ARTIS, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CR-18-05-0140
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: July 6, 2021
APPEARANCES:
Tyrell E. Artis Appellant
Alice Robinson-Bond for Appellee
Case No. 8-21-12
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Tyrell E. Artis (“Artis”), pro se, appeals the
March 18, 2021 judgment of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas denying
his post-conviction Motion to Vacate Conviction and/or Sentence.
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On May 8, 2018, (in case number CR18-05-0140) the Logan County
Grand Jury returned a two-count indictment against Artis alleging that he committed
one count of domestic violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A),(D)(4), a felony of
the third degree, and one count of abduction, in violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2),
(C), a felony of the third degree. The charges stemmed from a physical altercation
that Artis had with his live-in girlfriend, during which he prevented her from leaving
their home by grabbing her by the throat and strangling her, headbutting her, and
then throwing her down to the ground. The indicted domestic violence charge was
elevated to a felony of the third degree as a result of Artis’s prior domestic violence
convictions in 2011. Artis was subsequently found guilty by a jury on both counts.
{¶3} On August 21, 2018, the trial court imposed a prison term of 36 months
upon Artis for the domestic violence conviction, and a prison term of 24 months for
the abduction conviction. The trial court ordered the prison terms to run
consecutively for an aggregate prison term of 60 months.
{¶4} Artis filed a direct appeal to this Court of the August 21, 2018 Judgment
Entry of conviction and sentence. We affirmed this judgment on May 28, 2019.
-2-
Case No. 8-21-12
See State v. Artis, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-18-40, 2019-Ohio-2070. Notably, Artis did
not contest in his direct appeal the State’s use of his 2011 domestic violence
convictions to enhance his 2018 domestic violence conviction from misdemeanor
to a felony of the third degree.
{¶5} On October 29, 2019, Artis filed motions in the Bellefontaine
Municipal Court (in case numbers 11 CRB 01721 and 11 CRB 01850) to withdraw
his guilty pleas underlying his 2011 domestic violence convictions, arguing that his
pleas were uncounseled and therefore invalid. The State opposed Artis’s motions,
and on November 5, 2019, the municipal court issued judgments denying Artis’s
motions to withdraw his guilty pleas. Artis appealed the municipal court’s denial
of his motions to withdraw his pleas, maintaining the challenge to the validity of his
guilty pleas in his 2011 domestic violence convictions. This Court affirmed the
judgments of the municipal court on the basis that Artis’s claims were barred by the
doctrine of res judicata. See State v. Artis, Nos. 8-19-52, 8-19-53, 2020-Ohio-4018.
{¶6} On February 12, 2021, (in case number CR18-05-0140) Artis filed a
Motion to Vacate Conviction and/or Sentence, arguing that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to impose a felony sentence for his 2018 domestic violence conviction
on his contention that the charge should have been a misdemeanor. This contention
was based upon his allegation that his 2011 guilty pleas in his prior domestic
violence convictions were uncounseled with no valid waiver of counsel. Artis also
-3-
Case No. 8-21-12
asserted that his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue in his direct
appeal.
{¶7} The State filed a memorandum in opposition arguing that Artis’s
motion was an untimely petition for post-conviction relief, being filed outside of the
365-day statutory timeframe, and that in any event the claims raised in the motion
were barred by res judicata because Artis could have raised the issue in his direct
appeal of the 2018 judgment entry of conviction and sentence but failed to do so.
The State also noted that Artis had stipulated at the jury trial to the authenticity of
his prior 2011 domestic violence convictions as a matter of trial strategy. Artis filed
a reply to the State’s opposition arguing that his motion was not a petition for
postconviction relief.
{¶8} On March 18, 2021, the trial court issued a judgment entry overruling
Artis’s motion. The trial court construed the motion as a petition for postconviction
relief and found that the motion was untimely and failed to meet any exceptions to
the application of the statutory timeframe. The trial court also determined that
Artis’s claims could have been raised in his direct appeal and therefore were barred
by the doctrine of res judicata.
{¶9} It is from this judgment that Artis now appeals, asserting the following
assignment of error.
THE TRIAL COURT’S STANDARD OF REVIEW OF
APPELLANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A VOID
CONVICTION AND OR SENTENCE IS CONTRARY TO THE
-4-
Case No. 8-21-12
OHIO SUPREME COURT’S JURISPRUDENCE OF VOID
AND VOIDABLE WITHIN STATE v. HARPER, 2020-OHIO-
2913; STATE v. HENDERSON, 2022-OHIO-4784 IN WHICH
THE MERITS OF THE MATTER ESTABLISHES LACK OF
JURISDICTION.
{¶10} In his sole assignment of error, Artis argues that the trial court erred in
overruling his Motion to Vacate Conviction and/or Sentence. Specifically, he
claims that his 2011 misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence are void, not
voidable, and therefore could not have been used to enhance the domestic violence
offense from a misdemeanor to a felony in his 2018 case. Notably, Artis fails to
make any argument on appeal regarding the trial court’s treatment of his motion as
an untimely petition for post-conviction relief.
Legal Authority
{¶11} “A vaguely titled motion, including a motion to correct or vacate a
judgment or sentence, may be construed as a petition for postconviction relief under
R.C. 2953.21(A)(1) ….” State v. Rackley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102962, 2015-
Ohio-4504, ¶ 9; see State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235,
2002-Ohio-3993, ¶ 10 (noting
that trial courts may recast irregular motions into whatever category necessary to
identify and establish the criteria by which the motion should be judged).
{¶12} “A postconviction proceeding is not an appeal of a criminal
conviction, but, rather, a collateral civil attack on the judgment. Postconviction
review is a narrow remedy, since res judicata bars any claim that was or could have
been raised at trial or on direct appeal.” State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399, 410
-5-
Case No. 8-21-12
(1994) (Citation omitted). “[A] trial court’s decision granting or denying a
postconviction petition filed pursuant to R.C. 2953.21 should be upheld absent an
abuse of discretion ….” State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377,
2006-Ohio-6679,
¶ 58.
{¶13} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “where a criminal defendant,
subsequent to his or her direct appeal, files a motion seeking vacation or correction
of his or her sentence [or conviction] on the basis that his or her constitutional rights
have been violated, such a motion is a petition for postconviction relief as defined
in R.C. 2953.21.” State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 160 (1997). A motion
meets the definition for postconviction relief if it: “(1) was filed subsequent to [the
defendant’s] direct appeal, (2) claimed a denial of constitutional rights, (3) sought
to render the judgment void, and (4) asked for vacation of the judgment and
sentence.”
Id. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(A)(2), a defendant must file a
postconviction-relief petition within 365 days from the filing of the trial transcripts
in his or her direct appeal of the Judgment of Conviction.
{¶14} Additionally, it is longstanding Ohio law that “res judicata [is] a
proper basis upon which to dismiss without hearing an R.C. 2953.21 petition.” State
v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112, 113 (1982). Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final
judgment of conviction bars the convicted defendant from raising and litigating in
any proceeding, except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed
lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the
-6-
Case No. 8-21-12
trial which resulted in that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from that
judgment. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 180 (1967) (Emphasis omitted.).
Analysis
{¶15} At the outset, we find no error in the trial court’s determination that
Artis’s Motion to Vacate Conviction and/or Sentence meets the criteria for a petition
for postconviction relief. Moreover, the record confirms the trial court’s finding
that Artis filed his motion for postconviction relief more than 365 days after the trial
transcripts were filed in his direct appeal.1 As noted by the trial court, pursuant to
R.C. 2953.23, “a court may not entertain a petition filed after the expiration of the
period prescribed in [R.C. 2953.21] unless division (A)(1) or (2) of this section
applies ….” Revised Code section 2953.23(A)(1) governs being unavoidably
prevented from discovering new evidence and R.C. 2953.23(A)(2) governs actual
innocence as a result of DNA testing. Artis has failed to demonstrate that either
situation applies to his case.
{¶16} Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court was justified in
dismissing Artis’s postconviction relief motion for lack of jurisdiction because he
did not file it in a timely manner. This notwithstanding, we further conclude that
Artis’s arguments on appeal are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as he failed
to raise this issue in a direct appeal of the municipal court’s 2011 judgment entries
1
The trial transcripts were filed in Artis’s direct appeal on October 8, 2018. Artis filed the postconviction
motion at issue on February 12, 2021.
-7-
Case No. 8-21-12
convicting him of misdemeanor domestic violence and in his direct appeal of the
trial court’s 2018 judgment entry convicting him of felony domestic violence.
{¶17} Based on the foregoing, the assignment of error is overruled and the
judgment of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and MILLER, J.J., concur.
/hls
-8-
