State v. Fisk, 2011 Ohio 6116

Fisk pled guilty to two counts of drug trafficking in May 2010 and was sentenced to 25 months in prison.
She did not appeal the final judgment but filed a December 15, 2010 motion to vacate or correct an illegal sentence raising various constitutional arguments.
The trial court denied the motion without a hearing.
On appeal Fisk contends ineffective assistance, vindictive prosecution, unsubstantiated testimony, prejudicial sentence enhancement, double jeopardy, and other asserted errors.
The appellate court jointly addresses all six assignments, noting res judicata bars raising these issues on collateral review since they could have been raised on direct appeal.
The sole issue left for consideration is whether the trial court erred by overruling the motion without a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars the petition	Fisk argues the motion asserts constitutional rights and merits postconviction relief.	State contends issues could have been raised on direct appeal and are barred.	Res judicata bars relief; claims could have been raised on direct appeal.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a hearing on the postconviction motion	Fisk seeks a hearing to develop alleged constitutional deficiencies.	State contends no plausible postconviction claim exists; no hearing required.	No reversible error; court properly denied without a hearing when no cognizable postconviction claim.
Whether Fisk's postconviction claims establish a cognizable entitlement	Claims include ineffective assistance, vindictive prosecution, unsubstantiated testimony, and double jeopardy.	Guilty plea admits evidence; arguments lack basis for postconviction relief.	No cognizable postconviction relief relief; guilty plea forecloses these arguments.

State v. Pemberton, 2011-Ohio-373 (Gallia App. No. 10CA4, 2011-Ohio-373) (res judicata bar when issues could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Damron, 2010-Ohio-6459 (Ross App. No. 10CA3158, 2010-Ohio-6459) (res judicata applicability to postconviction claims)
State v. Reynolds, 1997-Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (postconviction relief framework; is relief available)
State v. Bradford, 2009-Ohio-1864 (Ross App. No. 08CA3053, 2009-Ohio-1864) (postconviction relief statute governs collateral attacks)
State v. Hatton, 2000-Ohio- (Pickaway App. No. 00CA10, 2000) (reaffirms standards for postconviction review)
State v. Cole, 1982-Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (threshold for hearing on postconviction relief)
State ex rel Jackson v. McMonagle, 1993-Ohio-143 (67 Ohio St.3d 450) (claims requiring procedural bases for relief)
State v. Wright, 2006-Ohio-7100 (Washington App. No. 06CA18, 2006-Ohio-7100) (analysis of hearing requirement for postconviction notions)
State v. Apanovitch, 1995-Ohio App.3d 82 (107 Ohio App.3d 82, 1995) (standards for postconviction relief petitions)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 1983-Ohio St.3d 217 (5 Ohio St.3d 217) (abuse of discretion standard)