State v. Mack

Citations

• 2017 Ohio 7417

Syllabus

Judgment affirmed. Appellant's claim that he is entitled to re-sentencing because his judgment entry is void is barred by res judicata, and his sentence is not void. Appellant's claim that the ODRC unconstitutionally altered his sentence fails because appellant never raised this argument with, and relies upon material that was not presented, to the trial court. In addition, the ODRC did not alter appellant's sentence. Appellant's claim that the trial court committed a due process violation by recasting his motion for shock probation as a motion for judicial release fails because this court lacks jurisdiction, and in any event, appellant is not eligible for shock probation.