Portage County Legal News

Appeals court affirms denial of motion to modify sentence after 17 years

JESSICA SCHAMBAUGH
Legal News Reporter
Published: May 21, 2013

The 10th District Court of Appeals ruled this week that a man was not entitled to a modified sentence more than 17 years after he was convicted of kidnapping and complicity and aggravated murder.

David Ayala recently filed a motion to modify his sentence in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that several of his charges should have been merged.

The three-judge appellate panel rejected his claims and found that his motion was time-barred because it was filed more than 17 years after his conviction and that the alleged errors would not render his sentence void.

“A claim of error and failing to merge counts for sentencing purposes is not a ‘void sentence’ issue,” 10th District Judge John McCormac wrote for the court.

Case summary states that Ayala was indicted in May 1994 on four counts each of kidnapping and robbery.

A supplemental indictment filed three months later charged him with complicity to aggravated murder.

Ayala was convicted on all charges following a jury trial and the 10th District affirmed the judgment on direct appeal.

In June 2012, Ayala filed a “Motion to modify sentence” in the common pleas court and claimed his firearm specifications, kidnapping counts, and complicity and aggravated murder charges should have been ordered to merge.

The trial court denied his motion and wrote that sentences were proper and counts involving separate victims do not merge.

Ayala appealed the decision to the 10th District and argued that the court’s refusal to resentence him was a manifest miscarriage of justice.

“Since appellant could have raised merger issues at the time of sentencing or thereafter on direct appeal, those issues are barred,” McCormac stated.

The judges ruled that claims concerning allied offenses are barred by res judicata. They further determined that they had already addressed the facts of Ayala’s case on direct appeal.

“We need not review the merits of appellant’s substantive claims because they were already decided (and rightly so in our judgment) cases that have long since become final. Consequently, none of appellant’s arguments change the fact that all of the claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata,” McCormac continued.

“Appellant’s assignment of error is overruled, and the judgments of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.”

Fellow 10th District judges Gary Tyack and Julia Dorrian joined McCormac to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Ayala, case No. 2013-Ohio-1875.

[Back]