State v. Franklin
2011 Ohio 4953
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- In 2001, Franklin pled guilty to two amended counts of rape and one count of felonious assault in separate cases.
- Before accepting the plea, the trial court determined the plea was voluntary and informed Franklin of his constitutional rights under Crim.R. 11, and that postrelease control could apply upon release from prison but did not state its length.
- Franklin did not appeal his conviction or sentence at that time.
- In October 2010, the trial court resentenced Franklin in Case No. CR-396833 to impose five years of mandatory postrelease control.
- Franklin appealed the resentencing, challenging his guilty plea and arguing improper Crim.R. 11 advisements.
- The court applied res judicata to bar challenges to the plea, limiting review to issues arising at the resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was involuntary due to Crim.R. 11 advisement failures | Franklin | State | Denied; res judicata bars plea challenge |
| Whether the plea challenge is preserved given res judicata | Franklin | State | Denied; res judicata applies to plea challenge and precludes relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (mandatory postrelease control void if not properly imposed; scope limited on resentencing)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (syllabus on issues not appealing where not raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Keenan, 81 Ohio St.3d 133 (1998) (no right to hybrid representation; counsel and self-representation cannot be combined)