State v. Waite , 2012 Ohio 489 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Waite, 
    2012-Ohio-489
    .]
    Court of Appeals of Ohio
    EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
    No. 96954
    STATE OF OHIO
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
    vs.
    BENJAMIN WAITE
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
    JUDGMENT:
    AFFIRMED
    Criminal Appeal from the
    Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
    Case No. CR-515222
    BEFORE: S. Gallagher, P.J., Rocco, J., and Keough, J.
    RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 9, 2012
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
    David L. Doughten
    The Brownhoist Building
    4403 St. Clair Avenue
    Cleveland, OH 44103
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    William D. Mason
    Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
    By: T. Allan Regas
    Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
    The Justice Center, 8th Floor
    1200 Ontario Street
    Cleveland, OH 44113
    SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J.:
    {¶ 1} Appellant, Benjamin Waite, appeals the decision of the Cuyahoga County
    Court of Common Pleas that denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. For the
    reasons stated herein, we affirm.
    {¶ 2} In February 2009, Waite entered a guilty plea in two separate cases. In
    Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-513417, he pleaded guilty to one count of robbery. In Cuyahoga
    C.P. No. CR-515222, he pleaded guilty to one count of intimidation. At the plea hearing,
    the trial court also found Waite violated the conditions of his community control in
    Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-490494. The trial court sentenced Waite to three years in prison
    for the robbery count, four years in prison for the intimidation count, and three years in
    prison for the community control violation, for a total of ten years in prison.
    {¶ 3} Waite filed a direct appeal to this court. State v. Waite, 8th Dist. No.
    92895, 
    2010-Ohio-1748
    , 
    2010 WL 1610496
    . He did not challenge his plea at that time.
    As a result of the appeal, the trial court was instructed to vacate Waite’s three-year prison
    term for the community control violation. Id. at ¶ 7. The remainder of his sentence and
    his conviction were affirmed. Id. at ¶ 11.
    {¶ 4} On April 18, 2011, Waite filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in
    CR-513417 and CR-515222. He claimed his trial counsel had advised him that his total
    sentence, including a probation violation, would not exceed five years, and that he relied
    upon this advice in entering his plea. He attached an affidavit in support of his motion.
    {¶ 5} The transcript of the plea hearing reflects that the trial court asked Waite
    whether he had been promised anything in exchange for his guilty plea and whether he
    understood the maximum sentences that he could receive on the charged offenses. Waite
    responded that he had not been promised anything and that he understood the possible
    penalties, which included a sentence of up to ten years in prison.
    {¶ 6} The trial court denied Waite’s motion.          Waite appealed the ruling in
    CR-515222.     He raises one assignment of error that argues the trial court erred by
    overruling his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
    {¶ 7} Crim.R. 32.1 provides that “[a] motion to withdraw a plea of guilty * * *
    may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court
    after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to
    withdraw his or her plea.” Crim.R. 32.1. This court has consistently found that the
    doctrine of res judicata bars all claims raised in a Crim.R. 32.1 postsentence motion to
    withdraw a guilty plea that were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal. State
    v. Carnail, 8th Dist. No. 95580, 
    2011-Ohio-3464
    , 
    2011 WL 2731830
    , ¶ 18; State v.
    Johns, 8th Dist. No. 92627, 
    2010-Ohio-68
    , 
    2010 WL 117710
    , ¶ 13; State v. McGee, 8th
    Dist. No. 91638, 
    2009-Ohio-3374
    , 
    2009 WL 1965292
    , ¶ 9.
    {¶ 8} In State v. Ketterer, 
    126 Ohio St.3d 448
    , 
    2010-Ohio-3831
    , 
    935 N.E.2d 9
    ,
    the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the application of res judicata to reject claims that a
    defendant raised on remand as a basis to withdraw his guilty pleas. The court recognized
    that “‘[r]es judicata bars the assertion of claims against a valid, final judgment of
    conviction that have been raised or could have been raised on appeal.’” Id. at ¶ 59,
    quoting State v. Perry, 
    10 Ohio St.2d 175
    , 
    226 N.E.2d 104
     (1967), paragraph nine of the
    syllabus. The court also found the trial court had no authority to consider a motion to
    withdraw a guilty plea subsequent to an appeal and an affirmance by the appellate court,
    because Crim.R. 32.1 “‘does not confer upon the trial court the power to vacate a
    judgment which has been affirmed by the appellate court, for this action would affect the
    decision of the reviewing court, which is not within the power of the trial court to do.’”
    Id. at ¶ 61, quoting State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Belmont Cty. Court of
    Common Pleas, 
    55 Ohio St.2d 94
    , 97-98, 
    378 N.E.2d 162
     (1978).
    {¶ 9} Accordingly, not only is Waite’s claim barred by res judicata, but also, the
    trial court lacked authority to consider his motion. We further find that any error in
    ruling on the motion was harmless, as the court should have simply dismissed the motion.
    Therefore, we overrule Waite’s sole assignment of error.
    Judgment affirmed.
    It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant 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. 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.
    SEAN C. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
    KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., and
    KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR