Youngstown Daily Legal News

Rapist, kidnapper has appeal denied for the fourth time

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 10, 2015

A panel of three judges in the 2nd District Court of Appeals recently ruled that a man who repeatedly challenged his trial court’s failure to merge his offenses was not entitled to another appeal on the matter.

The defendant, Ronald Dudley, appealed from the judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas which had overruled his motion for resentencing based on his belief that his convictions for kidnapping and rape should have merged.

“We have addressed Dudley’s argument in three separate opinions,” Judge Mary Donovan wrote in the opinion she authored on behalf of the appellate panel, “and each time, we have affirmed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that his convictions for rape and kidnapping were committed with a separate animus and do not merge.”

Case summary states that Dudley was found guilty by a jury on charges of rape, kidnapping, attempted rape and gross sexual imposition on Aug. 13, 2008. Later that month, he was sentenced to 20 to 50 years in prison.

On direct appeal, the 2nd District court found that Dudley’s rape and kidnapping convictions did not merge for sentencing but it did remand the case with an order for the trial court to merge the remaining counts.

On remand, the Montgomery County court again imposed 20 to 50 years after merging certain convictions. Dudley was also designated a Tier III sex offender under Senate Bill 10.

Again, Dudley appealed, arguing that the rape and kidnapping should have merge for sentencing. The 2nd District court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, overruling Dudley’s claims.

On Jan. 10, 2014, a federal court dismissed a writ of habeas corpus filed by Dudley and shortly thereafter he filed a motion for resentencing based on his previous merger argument in the common pleas court.

The denial of that motion became the subject of Dudley’s most recent appeal. In his brief, he urged the appellate panel to find that his convictions should merge, despite the argument’s failure in multiple earlier proceedings.

“This is not a matter of first impression for this court,” Donovan wrote. “Rather, this very issue has been thoroughly and repeatedly analyzed by this court and in each instance, we have unequivocally found that Dudley’s convictions for rape and kidnapping were committed with a separate animus and do not merge.”

In support of its stance, the court of appeals cited the doctrine of res judicata, which bars a convicted defendant from raising and litigating in any proceeding except a direct appeal, any defense or claimed lack of due process that could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.

“Consequently, Dudley’s contention that the trial court erred, plainly or otherwise, in failing to merge his convictions for rape and kidnapping is barred by the doctrine of res judicata,” Donovan wrote. “Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it overruled Dudley’s motion for resentencing pursuant to Crim.R. 52(B).”

The judgment of the Montgomery County court was affirmed with Judges Michael Hall and Jeffrey Welbaum joining Donovan to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Dudley, 2015-Ohio-4712.

[Back]