COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73024 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : -VS- : AND : HOWARD L. REEDER : OPINION : Defendant-Appellant : Date of Announcement of Decision: JULY 9, 1998 Character of Proceeding: Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-262283 Judgment: Affirmed Date of Journalization: Appearances: For Plaintiff-Appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor DIANE SMILANICK, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: HOWARD REEDER, PRO SE Inmate No. 243-057 Hocking Correctional Facility P.O. Box 59 Nelsonville, Ohio 45764-0059 -2- JAMES M. PORTER, P.J.: Defendant-appellant Howard L. Reeder appeals pro se from his sentence imposed November 21, 1991 following a guilty plea to involuntary manslaughter (R.C. 2903.04). Defendant contends that he is entitled to have his sentence reduced pursuant to the more lenient sentencing provisions of Am. S.B.2 which became effective July 1, 1996. We hold that Am. S.B.2 is not retroactive and affirm the judgment below. Defendant's sole assignment of error states as follows: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT IN DISMISSING THE PETITION AS ITS MERITS ARE CLEAR AND CONVINCING. Defendant was indicted by the Grand Jury on March 13, 1991 on one count of murder. On October 23, 1991, defendant entered a guilty plea to the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, which the trial court accepted. The trial court sentenced defendant on November 21, 1991 to an actual term of incarceration of four to ten years, without probation. Defendant filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal on July 1, 1993, which this Court granted. Defendant's appeal was dismissed on August 21, 1993 for failure to file a brief, but was reinstated on October 6, 1993. Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court in State v. Reeder (April 14, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 65782, unreported. On July 18, 1997, defendant filed a motion to advise and re- sentence in the trial court based on Am. S.B.2. The trial court -3- denied said motion on July 31, 1997. The matter is presently before this Court on appeal from the trial court's denial of said motion. The Supreme Court of Ohio, in the recent case of State ex rel. Lemmon v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 186, clearly stated that the amended sentencing provisions of Am. S.B.2 do not apply to persons convicted and sentenced prior to July 1, 1996. Consequently, because defendant was convicted and sentenced prior to July 1, 1996, Am. S.B.2 is expressly inapplicable to him. Defendant nevertheless argues that he has a clear legal right pursuant to R.C. 1.58(B) to have his sentence modified. R.C. 1.58(B) provides in part that if one's punishment for an offense is reduced by reenactment or amendment of a statute, the punishment, if not already imposed, shall be imposed according to the amended statute. Again, because defendant was sentenced prior to the effective date of Am. S.B.2, his sentence was already imposed and R.C. 1.58(B) is inapplicable. See State ex rel. Maynard v. Corrigan (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 332, 333; State v. Abelt (Feb. 27, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71361, unreported at 5. Defendant's sole assignment of error is overruled. Accordingly, defendant's appeal is without merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 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 Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. 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. SPELLACY, J., and ROCCO, J., CONCUR. JAMES M. PORTER PRESIDING 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 .