[Cite as State v. Johnson,
2024-Ohio-44.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- :
:
CHARLES JOHNSON, : Case No. 2023 CA 0035
:
Defendant - Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County
Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
2015-CR-432
JUDGMENT: Vacated and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 9, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JODIE SCHUMACHER CHARLES JOHNSON, Pro Se
Prosecuting Attorney #673-390
Richland County, Ohio P.O. Box 1812
Marion, Ohio 43302
By: MARTIN I. NEWMAN
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
38 South Park Street
Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0035 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} The appellant, Charles Johnson, appeals the ruling made by the trial court
on May 31, 2023. The appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} On September 11, 2015, the appellant was convicted by a jury of felonious
assault and aggravated burglary.
{¶3} On September 16, 2015, the trial court sentenced the appellant to eight
years for the felonious assault and six years for the aggravated burglary to be served
consecutively. The trial court also ordered the appellant to pay restitution of $6,140.00.
{¶4} On October 14, 2015, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal arguing
ineffective assistance of counsel.
{¶5} On November 15, 2015, the trial court amended its sentence ordering the
appellant to pay restitution totaling $15,287.74.
{¶6} On May 13, 2016, this Court overruled the appellant’s sole assignment of
error of ineffective assistance of counsel.
{¶7} On March 16, 2020, the appellant filed a pro se motion to correct the
November 15, 2015 sentencing entry.
{¶8} On March 24, 2020, the appellee filed a response conceding that the
appellant only owed $6,140.00 of restitution.
{¶9} On January 28, 2021, the trial court held a resentencing hearing. At the
hearing, the trial court continued the appellant’s prison sentence but altered the restitution
to $6,140.00.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0035 3
{¶10} On February 2, 2021, the appellant filed a second Notice of Appeal
regarding the resentencing.
{¶11} On January 25, 2022, this Court dismissed the appeal as the amended
sentence was placed on the record when the trial court lacked jurisdiction and reinstated
the September 16, 2015 sentence.
{¶12} On November 16, 2022, the appellant filed a Motion to Vacate Restitution,
which was denied by the trial court on December 6, 2022.
{¶13} On January 5, 2023, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on the trial court’s
denial of Appellant’s Motion to Vacate Restitution. While this appeal was pending the
appellant filed another motion in the trial court to correct his sentence on May 15, 2023.
The trial court denied this motion on May 31, 2023.
{¶14} On June 7, 2023, this Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s
Motion to Vacate Restitution.
{¶15} On June 30, 2023, the appellant filed a fourth Notice of Appeal, this time
appealing the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s Motion to Correct Sentence setting forth
the following assignments of error:
{¶16} “I. APPELLANT’S SENTENCE IS VOID.”
{¶17} “II. SENTENCE IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY
THE RECORD.”
JURISDICTION
{¶18} As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether the trial court had
jurisdiction to issue the May 31, 2023 judgment entry denying Appellant’s Motion to
Correct Sentence.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0035 4
{¶19} “With few exceptions, a trial court loses jurisdiction over a case once a
notice of appeal is filed.” Middleton v. Luna’s Restaurant & Deli, L.L.C., 5th Dist. Stark
No. 2011-CA-00181, 2012-Ohio-348, ¶11. A trial court’s jurisdiction does not extend to
matters inconsistent with the appellate court’s jurisdiction to review, reverse, modify, or
affirm the judgment. State ex rel. Rock v. School Employees Retirement Board,
96 Ohio
St.3d 206,
2002-Ohio-3957,
772 N.E.2d 1197, ¶8 (per curiam).
{¶20} When the May 31, 2023 judgment entry was issued, the case was before
the court of appeals on the issue of vacating restitution. Therefore, we find the trial court
lacked jurisdiction to proceed on the issue to correct the appellant’s sentence.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment in question and remand to the trial court to consider
Appellant’s Motion to Correct Sentence in light of the fact this Court reinstated the original
September 16, 2015 sentence on January 25, 2022.
{¶21} Based upon our determination that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, we
decline to address the first and second Assignments of Error.
Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0035 5
CONCLUSION
{¶22} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of
Richland County, Ohio, is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
By: Baldwin, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
