State v. Day, 2016 Ohio 36

Day was indicted in 2008 for aggravated burglary, burglary, domestic violence, and abduction; a related rape charge was later dismissed; cases were consolidated.
In July 2008 Day pled guilty to the four charges and the State and defense agreed on a 12-year sentence.
On appeal, this court merged the burglary with aggravated burglary and vacated the burglary conviction; 12-year sentence remained unchanged.
In January 2011 Day filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that his address made aggravate burglary unsupported; petition deemed untimely and not excused.
In March 2013 Day moved to withdraw his guilty plea; in February 2015 the trial court denied without a hearing; Day appeals claiming ineffective assistance and failure to dismiss the charge.
The appellate court held that Day’s claims were barred by res judicata and affirmed the trial court’s denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Day’s claims barred by res judicata?	Day argues ineffective assistance and lack of residence facts could be raised anew.	State contends claims could have been raised earlier and are barred.	Yes; res judicata bars the claims.

State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010-Ohio-3831) (res judicata bars relitigation of claims in post-conviction motions)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (foundational res judicata principles and final judgments)
State v. Brooks, 2010-Ohio-1682 (2d Dist. Montgomery) (manifest injustice standard in post-sentence withdrawal)
State v. Ulery, 2011-Ohio-4549 (2d Dist. Clark) (claims raised in withdrawal motions barred if final judgment;)
State v. Madrigal, 2011-Ohio-798 (6th Dist. Lucas) (ineffective assistance claims could be outside appellate record)
State v. Curtis, 2013-Ohio-1690 (2d Dist. Greene) (distinguishes post-conviction petitions from Crim.R. 32.1 motions)