State v. Boyd , 2020 Ohio 6866 ( 2020 )

[Cite as State v. Boyd, 2020-Ohio-6866.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ERIE COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. E-20-006
Appellee Trial Court No. 2005 CR 0103
v.
Deonta Boyd DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: December 23, 2020
*****
Kevin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Kristin R. Palmer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Deonta Boyd, pro se.
*****
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Deonta Boyd, appeals from the March 12, 2020 judgment of the
Erie County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to vacate his guilty plea on the
ground that appellant failed to demonstrate a manifest injustice occurred. For the reasons
which follow we affirm.
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Mr. Boyd argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying
his motion to vacate guilty pleas pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 without a
hearing, and finding that Mr. Boyd had not established a manifest injustice.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The trial court prejudiced Appellant during the plea hearing when it
did not inform him of his Constitutional right to compulsory process,
thereby failing to strictly complying with Ohio Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) in
violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
and Article I Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Mr. Boyd argues that his guilty plea was invalid and void because
the trial court failed to advise him that post release control would be a part
of his maximum sentence?
{¶ 2} In 2006, appellant was represented by two attorneys when he agreed to enter
guilty pleas to reduced charges of aggravated murder, with a firearm specification,
felonious assault, and aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced appellant to
consecutive terms of imprisonment of life with eligibility for parole after 20 years,
3 years for the firearm specification conviction, and 8 years for the aggravated burglary
conviction. Appellant did not appeal the judgment of conviction and sentencing despite
having been notified of his right to a limited appeal.
2.
{¶ 3} Appellant filed his first post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea in
2007, which was denied by the trial court. Appellant did not appeal from this decision.
On January 27, 2020, appellant filed a second motion to withdraw his guilty plea
asserting his plea was not intelligently, voluntarily, or knowingly made because he did
not understand the maximum penalties involved and had not been notified of his
constitutional right to compulsory process. The trial court denied the motion on
March 27, 2020, on the ground that appellant had not demonstrated a manifest injustice
had occurred.
{¶ 4} In his first assignment of error, appellant presents two arguments. He first
argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to vacate his guilty plea
without a hearing. We reject this argument because the trial court may determine such a
motion without a hearing. State v. Ridenour, 12th Dist. No. CA2005-05-017, 2006-Ohio-
500, ¶ 14-15 (no hearing is required to determine a motion to withdraw a guilty plea after
sentencing where the facts alleged would not require the trial court to grant the motion to
withdraw the plea).
{¶ 5} Second, appellant argues that the trial court erred by finding that Mr. Boyd
had not established a manifest injustice. Appellant’s second and third assignments of
error relate to the validity of the guilty plea. We find all of these arguments are barred by
the doctrine of res judicata.
{¶ 6} The doctrine of res judicata bars an offender from raising an issue in a post-
sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea which was or could have been raised on
3.
appeal. State v. Straley, 159 Ohio St.3d 82, 2019-Ohio-5206, 147 N.E.3d 623, ¶ 15,
citing State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 59; State
v. Harper, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-2913, ¶ 43 (“caution[ing] prosecuting attorneys,
defense counsel, and pro se defendants throughout this state that they are now on notice
that any claim that the trial court has failed to properly impose postrelease control in the
sentence must be brought on appeal from the judgment of conviction or the sentence will
be subject to res judicata.”); State v. Harris, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1022, 2020-Ohio-
4699, ¶ 4. The doctrine also bars filing repetitive motions to withdraw a guilty plea.
State ex rel. Hughes v. Cuyahoga Cty., 151 Ohio St.3d 45, 2017-Ohio-7780, 85 N.E.3d
723, ¶ 5.
{¶ 7} In this case, appellant’s arguments could have been raised on appeal. The
issues could have been or were raised in his first motion to withdraw his guilty plea and
could have been asserted on appeal from the judgment denying his first motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. Therefore, any arguments appellant could have raised regarding
the entry of his guilty plea are now barred under the doctrine of res judicata and his
second motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been dismissed on that ground.
Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, but on different grounds. We find
appellant’s three assignments of error not well-taken.
{¶ 8} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudicial to
appellant and that substantial justice has been done, the judgment of the Erie County
4.
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal
pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
_______________________________
Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
5.