[Cite as State v. Williamson,
2024-Ohio-4980.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
:
-vs- :
: Case No. CT2024-0032
SHAWN WILLIAMSON :
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court
of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2023-0174
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 15, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOSEPH PALMER APRIL CAMPBELL
Assistant Prosecutor Campbell Law, LLC
27 North 5th Street #201 545 Metro Place S. , Suite #100
Zanesville, OH 43701 Dublin, OH 43017
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0032 2
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} In Defendant-appellant Shawn Williamson’s [“Williamson”] direct appeal,
this Court remanded the case to the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas to
address the serious physical harm issue as it relates to Williamson’s guilty plea to the
repeat violent offender specifications contained in counts four and eighteen of the
indictment. At the re-sentencing hearing the judge found sufficient facts to support the
finding of guilt on the repeat violent offender specifications. The trial judge then imposed
the same sentence as he originally imposed. Williamson appeals the trial judge’s
decision.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} Williamson originally entered negotiated guilty pleas to ten counts, two of
which were second-degree felonies with repeat violent offender specifications. State v.
Williamson, 2024-Ohio-327, ¶ 8 (5th Dist.). [“Williamson I”]. As a part of the plea deal
with the state, Williamson agreed to plead not only to those two counts, but also to
the specifications. Williamson filed a direct appeal of his sentences. On appeal, this
Court concluded,
Finally, we find that the first portion of appellant’s second assignment
of error, that the trial court erred when it did not make the required findings
of fact regarding serious physical harm in connection with the imposition of
repeat violent offender prison time, to have merit. We therefore remand this
matter to the trial court for the narrow purpose of addressing the serious
physical harm issue as it relates to the appellant’s guilty plea to the repeat
violent offender specifications contained in counts four and eighteen.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0032 3
Williamson I, ¶ 33.
{¶3} The trial judge conducted a re-sentencing hearing on February 14, 2024.
The state argued that Williamson broke into the victim’s home by kicking in her door while
she was asleep, snuck around, and stole her car keys. T. at 6-7. Williamson, once outside
the home, held a gun to his own head and threatened to shoot himself. Id. at 7. The
defense argued that Williamson did not brandish the gun until he was outside the victim’s
home, and then he held the gun to his own head. Id. at 7-8. The defense argued that the
victim was asleep and no one else was aware of the gun, so no one other than Williamson
was aware of the risk of serious physical harm. Id. at 8. However, the police had arrived
when Williamson threatened to shoot himself. Id.
{¶4} The trial judge first incorporated by reference the entire original sentencing
proceeding. The judge noted that Williamson was on post-release control for a crime of
violence at the time of the present offenses. Id. at 10. The judge held,
[T]he Defendant brandished a firearm while he was on post-release
control and had that firearm on his person which was a threat of serious
physical harm against persons while breaking into their home. Additionally,
holding this firearm to his own head showed that serious physical harm was
an imminent threat to a person. The Court therefore finds sufficient facts to
support the finding of guilt on the Repeat Violent Offender Specifications
attached to Counts Four and Eight. The same sentence as originally
imposed on June 26, 2023, remains in effect.
T. at 10-11; Judgment Entry, filed Feb. 16, 2024.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0032 4
Assignment of Error
{¶5} Williamson raises one Assignment of Error,
{¶6} “I. THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE, ISSUE PRECLUSION DOCTRINE,
AND THE LAW OF THE CASE BARRED THE TRIAL COURT FROM IMPOSING A
SENTENCE ON WILLIAMSON'S REPEAT VIOLENT OFFENDER SPECIFICATIONS
UPON REMAND, BECAUSE IT DID NOT FIRST MAKE THE NECESSARY FACTUAL
FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE SENTENCE IN WILLIAMSON’S FIRST SENTENCING
HEARING UNDER R.C. 2929.14.”
Law and Analysis
{¶7} In the case at bar, Williamson argues that the trial judge could not make the
findings concerning the repeat violent offender specification because the judge failed to
make the findings during the original sentencing hearing. He argues the finding is barred
by res judicata because the state did not appeal the trial judge’s failure to make the
findings in the original appeal.
{¶8} The doctrine of the law-of-the-case applies in the instant matter. Under the
law-of-the-case doctrine, “the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of
that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at
both the trial and reviewing levels.” Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, (1984), citing
Gohman v. St. Bernard,
111 Ohio St. 726, 730 (1924), reversed on other grounds, New
York Life Ins. Co. v. Hosbrook,
130 Ohio St. 101, (1935). We remanded this case with
instructions to the trial judge to address the serious physical harm findings as it relates to
Williamson’s guilty plea to the repeat violent offender specifications contained in counts
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0032 5
four and eighteen. As demonstrated above, the trial judge did what we instructed he
should do.
{¶9} “Absent extraordinary circumstances, such as an intervening decision by
[the Supreme Court], an inferior court has no discretion to disregard the mandate of a
superior court in a prior appeal in the same case.” Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d at 5. Thus, once
Williamson exhausted his appeals related to Williamson I, this Court’s decision in that
matter became the law of the case, both in this Court and in the trial court. Pavlides v.
Niles Gun Show, Inc.,
112 Ohio App.3d 609, 615, (5th Dist. 1996); State v. Watson, 2023-
Ohio-1469, ¶ 20 (5th Dist.), appeal not allowed,
2023-Ohio-4034, ¶ 20.
{¶10} Accordingly, as the Ohio Supreme Court has not accepted an appeal from
our decision in Williamson I, neither the trial court, nor this Court, can disregard our
mandate that the trial judge address the serious physical harm issue as it relates to
Williamson’s guilty plea to the repeat violent offender specifications contained in counts
four and eighteen.
{¶11} Williamson’s reliance on State v. O’Halloran, 2022-Ohio-1342 (2nd Dist.)
[“O’Halloran, II”] is misplaced. In O’Halloran, the trial judge originally imposed definite,
concurrent sentences on three counts of rape. O’Halloran appealed from the trial court’s
judgment. State v. O'Halloran,
2021-Ohio-11, ¶ 8. [“O’Halloran, I”]. On appeal, O'Halloran
argued the trial court erred by sentencing him to life prison terms on each of the rape
counts. He asserted the trial court was statutorily obligated to sentence him to a minimum
of 10 years to a maximum of life on each count. The state conceded the error. O’Halloran,
I, ¶ 7.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0032 6
{¶12} On appeal, the court found the sentencing statute, R.C. 2971.03, applicable
to the case provides that the court shall impose a minimum term of 10 years and a
maximum term of life imprisonment. R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(a). O’Halloran, I ¶ 8. The court
found that the trial judge did not impose the sentence mandated by statute. Instead, the
trial court converted an indefinite sentence required by statute into a de facto definite
sentence, and in so doing, it exceeded its sentencing authority. O’Halloran, I ¶ 9.
Accordingly, the court remanded the matter for resentencing. O’Halloran, I, ¶15.
{¶13} On resentencing, the trial judge, in addition to sentencing O’Halloran to
indefinite prison terms of ten years to life for each of the rape convictions, made the
sentences for the three counts of rape consecutive. O’Halloran did not challenge, and the
state did not file a cross-appeal regarding, the concurrent nature of the sentences
imposed for the three rape counts in the original appeal. O’Halloran, II, ¶ 17. The Court
of Appeals found that res judicata precluded the trial court from changing the sentences
from concurrent, and imposing consecutive sentences for, O’Halloran’s three rape
convictions on remand. Id.
{¶14} In the case at bar, the trial judge imposed the same sentence that he
originally imposed. The only difference was the finding that sufficient facts were found to
support the finding of guilt on the repeat violent offender specifications.
{¶15} Therefore, because the trial judge imposed the same sentence that he
originally imposed, Williamson can demonstrate no prejudice to his substantive rights
from the trial judge’s findings concerning serious physical harm with respect to the repeat
violent offender specifications on remand from this Court.
{¶16} Williamson’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2024-0032 7
{¶17} The judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Wise, J., and
King, J., concur
