State v. Beechler, 2015 Ohio 4106

Dana Beechler was convicted in 2009 of two felony OVIs with a specification that he had five or more prior OVI-related convictions within 20 years; convictions merged and he received consecutive prison terms including a five-year specification term.
This court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal; subsequent collateral efforts (motion for relief from judgment, mandamus) were denied or dismissed, with Ohio Supreme Court declining the mandamus.
In September 2014 Beechler filed a pro se "Motion to Vacate Sentence for the Specification and or a New Trial," alleging trial counsel and the prosecutor stipulated to the prior-offense specification without his knowledge or the court addressing him on the record.
He also requested recusal of the trial judge, claiming the judge who presided at trial should not rule on the motion because the judge allowed the stipulation without addressing Beechler.
The trial court summarily overruled the motion without addressing recusal; Beechler appealed pro se.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether the trial judge should have recused from ruling on Beechler's motion	Beechler: judge who presided at trial and allowed the stipulation had a conflict and must recuse from ruling on the motion	State: recusal allegation could have been raised earlier and the proper procedure is to file an affidavit with the Ohio Supreme Court	Overruled — res judicata argument inapplicable to recusal here, but proper recusal procedure is an affidavit to Ohio Supreme Court; assignment denied
2. Whether counsel/prosecutor improperly stipulated to the specification without Beechler's knowledge or the court addressing him	Beechler: stipulation to the prior-offense specification occurred without his consent or on-the-record waiver; conviction/specification should be vacated or new trial granted	State: issue could and should have been raised on direct appeal; res judicata bars relitigation	Overruled — claim barred by res judicata because the record would have shown any failure to address Beechler and could have been raised on direct appeal
3. Whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to inquire of Beechler on the record about his understanding/consent to the stipulation	Beechler: trial court violated due process and Crim.R. procedures by not asking him on the record	State: same res judicata defense; issue was or could have been raised on direct appeal	Overruled — identical to issue 2 and barred by res judicata

State ex rel. Beechler v. Rastatter, 140 Ohio St.3d 343 (Ohio 2014) (Ohio Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of mandamus petition)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (doctrine of res judicata bars raising issues on collateral attack that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)