DocketNumber: Case No. 2004CA00045.
Citation Numbers: 2004 Ohio 4462
Judges: HOFFMAN, P.J.
Filed Date: 8/25/2004
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 3} On April 1, 2004, appellant separately filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea and a Post-Conviction Petition. Appellee filed its response to appellant's motion on April 23, 2004. The trial court scheduled the matter for a non-oral hearing on April 30, 2004. Via Judgment Entry filed May 3, 2004, the trial court denied both of appellant's motions. It is from that judgment entry appellant prosecutes this appeal assigning as error:
{¶ 4} "The appellant was denied his sixth amendment right to appellate counsel and due process of law in violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution of the united states.
{¶ 5} "The appellant is innocent of the crime for which he was convicted because his actions where [sic] immediately necessary because his ex-wife told him in court that she was taking his daughter to kyrgyzstan which is not a member of the hague convention.
{¶ 6} "III. The state of ohio's mandatory specification of "sexual offender" for the offense of kidnapping is unconstitutional when the criminal offense itself involves no sexual misconduct."
{¶ 7} This case comes to us on the accelerated calendar. App. R. 11.1, which governs accelerated calender cases, provides, in pertinent part:
{¶ 8} "(E) Determination and judgment on appeal.
{¶ 9} "The appeal will be determined as provided by App. R. 11.1. It shall be sufficient compliance with App. R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason for the court's decision as to each error to be in brief and conclusionary form.
{¶ 10} "The decision may be by judgment entry in which case it will not be published in any form."
{¶ 11} This appeal shall be considered in accordance with the aforementioned rule.
{¶ 13} In support of his claim, appellant relies on State v.Gover (1995),
{¶ 14} Unlike Gover, appellant was not denied counsel at the pre-appellate level. The proper remedy is not post-conviction relief, but rather a request for a delayed appeal.
{¶ 15} Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.1
{¶ 17} Appellant's second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 19} Although we appreciate the State's recommendation, we find the issue appellant now asserts in this assignment of error would have been cognizable on direct appeal. Therefore, appellant is barred by the principle of res judicata from now raising the issue on appeal of the denial of his post-conviction relief petition.
{¶ 20} Appellant's third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 21} The May 3, 2004 Judgment Entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Hoffman, P.J., Wise, J. and Edwards, J. concur.
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the May 3, 2004 Judgment Entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to appellant.