State v. Cherry

Summary

The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the denial of Letwan E. Cherry’s motion to vacate his indefinite prison sentence for trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound. The court held that his sentencing arguments were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised on direct appeal, and further concluded that the six-to-nine-year sentence fell within the applicable statutory range without requiring judicial fact-finding. The court also declined to consider arguments directed at a later motion to modify or reduce the sentence because that judgment was not the subject of the appeal.

Holdings

1. The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider arguments directed at the trial court's January 7, 2026 judgment because the notice of appeal designated only the November 20, 2025 judgment.
2. The trial court properly denied Cherry's postconviction challenge because alleged sentencing errors that render a sentence voidable, rather than void, must be raised on direct appeal; failure to do so bars a later collateral attack under res judicata.
3. The sentence did not violate Apprendi or Alleyne because Ohio law authorized the trial court to select a minimum term within the statutory range without additional judicial factfinding, and the imposed six-to-nine-year term was within that range.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to consider claims concerning sentence modification, mitigating factors, ineffective assistance, and denial of a hearing when those claims concerned a later trial-court judgment that was not designated in the notice of appeal.
2. Whether Cherry's postconviction challenge to the legality of his sentence was barred by res judicata because any sentencing error was voidable and could have been raised on direct appeal.
3. Whether the trial court's imposition of an indefinite six-to-nine-year sentence for first-degree-felony trafficking violated Apprendi or Alleyne by relying on impermissible judicial factfinding.
4. Whether the sentence was authorized by the applicable Ohio statutory sentencing range.

Disposition

affirmed