COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72157 CITY OF CLEVELAND, : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : and vs. : OPINION : SAM MOFFIE, : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : JANUARY 22, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: : Criminal appeal from : Cleveland Municipal : Court : Case No. 94-CRB-26538 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: Barbara A. Langhenry Assistant Director of Law City Hall - Room 106 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 For defendant-appellant: John A. Hickey 3794 Pearl Road Cleveland, Ohio 44106-2799 -2- NAHRA, J.: In 1995, appellant, Samuel Moffie, was convicted of housing code violations in four separate cases in the city of Cleveland, Ohio. In City of Cleveland v. Moffie (Sep. 12, 1996), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 69395, 69396, 69397, 69398, unreported, this court overturned three of the four cases, affirmed the fourth, and remanded it for execution of sentence. Appellant appeals the imposition of a fine of $1,500 in the case remanded to the trial court. Appellant's sole assignment of error states: WHETHER THE JUDGE TO WHOM THE CASE IS REMANDED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, CAN FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF A VIOLATION OF THE HOUSING CODE WHEN THE JOURNAL ENTRY OF THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT ON ITS FACE, FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY NOR IMPOSE A FINE? Appellant argues that he was never actually found guilty by the trial court in this case, that sentence was never actually imposed, and that therefore, the judge on remand cannot impose sentence. The court's original form journal entry in this case reflects that the judge omitted to circle that part of the form indicating appellant's guilt. However, the docket reflects a separate entry on July 10, 1995 that appellant was found guilty and fined $1500. Appellant's assignment of error is without merit. In State v. Houston (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 346, 347, 652 N.E.2d 1018, 1019, the court stated that: Res judicata may be applied to bar further litigation of issues that were raised previously or could have been raised previously in an appeal. *** In State v. Murnahan -3- (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 66, 584 N.E.2d 1204, 1209, we held that in some cases circumstances render the application of res judicata unjust. (Citations omitted.) See, also, State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104. Appellant cannot contest his original finding of guilt on this second appeal where he did not previously raise the issue, where his arguments rely on the record as it existed at the time of the first appeal, and where he has not demonstrated an injustice would occur by applying the doctrine of res judicata. 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. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DYKE, P.J., and ________________________________ JOSEPH J. NAHRA SPELLACY, J., CONCUR. 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 .