2021 Ohio 3787
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- Lamar L. Cartlidge was indicted on multiple drug- and offense-related counts and pled guilty to all counts.
- On September 13, 2018 the trial court imposed maximum consecutive sentences totaling 144 months and ordered them consecutive to remaining post-release-control time.
- Cartlidge appealed; this court affirmed the sentence on direct appeal (Apr. 8, 2019).
- On January 12, 2021 Cartlidge filed a pro se Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea, attaching a plea-hearing transcript he described as "dehors the record" and claiming the plea was involuntary because the court failed to advise about mandatory consecutive sentencing under R.C. 2929.141 and R.C. 2921.331.
- The trial court denied the motion (Mar. 11, 2021), finding the transcript was not new evidence and that the issues should have been raised on direct appeal; Cartlidge appealed and this court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a post-sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion based on allegedly newly discovered evidence (plea transcript). | State: Res judicata bars the motion; transcript is not new evidence. | Cartlidge: Transcript is evidence dehors the record showing plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent. | Affirmed — transcript was part of the original record and not new; res judicata bars the claim. |
| Whether the court erred by failing to notify Cartlidge before accepting his plea about consecutive sentencing for a PRC violation under R.C. 2929.141. | State: This claim could have been raised on direct appeal and is barred. | Cartlidge: Lack of notification rendered plea involuntary. | Affirmed — claim is barred by res judicata because it could have been raised on direct appeal. |
| Whether the court erred by failing to notify Cartlidge that sentences for R.C. 2921.331 violations must be consecutive to other sentences. | State: Same res judicata response. | Cartlidge: Failure to advise created manifest injustice. | Affirmed — barred by res judicata; no showing of manifest injustice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (post-sentence withdrawal requires defendant to show manifest injustice).
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (defines "abuse of discretion" standard for appellate review).
- State v. Straley, 159 Ohio St.3d 82 (2019) (res judicata bars claims in Crim.R. 32.1 motions that were or could have been raised on direct appeal).
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (defendant may challenge voluntariness of plea on direct appeal).