COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71598 STATE OF OHIO, : ACCELERATED DOCKET : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : AND v. : : OPINION KEITH EDWARDS, : : PER CURIAM : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 22, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-232945 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: Arthur A. Elkins Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: Keith Edwards, Pro Se No. 211-800 P.O. Box 901 Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430-0901 -2- PER CURIAM: Appellant's first assignment of error was overruled by this court in State v. Edwards (Feb. 7, 1991), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 58002 & 59425, unreported, and is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. State v. Drake (Oct. 13, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 66830, unreported Appellant's second assignment of error is similarly overruled. The doctrine of res judicata bars those claims which were or could have been fully litigated in a previous proceeding. Drake, supra; State v. Wilcox (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 273, 276. Appellant should have raised his second assignment of error in his first appeal. Accordingly, appellant's second assignment of error is not well taken. Additionally, we overrule appellant's third assignment of error. Appellant incorrectly contends that Ohio's new sentencing guidelines, applicable to crimes committed on or after July 1, 1996, should be given retroactive application. However, it is clear that the sentencing guidelines were not intended to have retroactive application. State v. Linton (Sept. 30, 1996), Portage App. No. 96-P-0001, unreported. See, also, R.C. 1.48. Rather, the guidelines apply "to persons who commit offenses on and after July 1, 1996." State v. Abelt (Feb. 27, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71361, unreported. Further, despite his contrary argument, appellant is not entitled to retroactive application of the guidelines under Teague v. Lane (1989), 489 U.S. 288. The plurality opinion in Teague, subsequently adopted by a majority of the United States Supreme -3- Court in Penry v. Lynaugh (1989), 492 U.S. 302, established a general rule against retroactive application of new rules of criminal procedure subject to two exceptions: 1) where the new rule placed "certain kinds of primary, private conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe;" or, 2) where the new rule required the observance of procedures "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." State v. McCall (Aug. 21, 1996), Lorain App. No. 95CA006291, unreported. Neither exception is implicated by the enactment of Ohio's new sentencing structure. Appellant's last argument contends that a failure to apply the new sentencing guidelines retroactively would manifest constitutional error. This position is wholly without merit. Abelt, supra; State v. Adkins (July 12, 1996), Fulton App. No. F- 95-028, unreported; State v. Carlton (May 28, 1996), Warren App. No. CA96-01-007, unreported. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's third assignment of error. Judgment affirmed. -4- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JOSEPH J. NAHRA, PRESIDING JUDGE DIANE KARPINSKI, JUDGE LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .