State v. Mayes
2017 Ohio 9313
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Derrick E. Mayes was arrested in 2010 and ultimately indicted in three separate indictments that together charged 56 counts under R.C. Chapter 2907.
- Mayes executed three time-waivers of unlimited duration covering the potential charges and later accepted a plea agreement, pleading no contest on December 7, 2012 to 25 sexual-offense counts.
- The trial court sentenced Mayes on December 28, 2012, imposing a mandatory life term on one rape count and maximum concurrent terms on the other counts; the termination entry was docketed January 8, 2013.
- Mayes did not file a direct appeal; instead he sought post-conviction relief in 2013 alleging ineffective assistance because counsel misadvised him about parole prospects; the trial court denied relief and this court affirmed in 2014.
- In 2016 Mayes moved to withdraw his pleas under Crim.R. 32.1, raising (1) ineffective assistance re: speedy-trial waivers, (2) failure to notify him fully of Tier III registration requirements, and (3) invalidity of the initial time waiver; the trial court denied the motion as barred by res judicata and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance by having Mayes sign a time waiver before indictment (speedy-trial claim) | The State: issue is barred by res judicata because it could have been raised on direct appeal; waiver also effective | Mayes: counsel failed to research and protect speedy-trial rights by obtaining/using a pre‑indictment time waiver | Court: barred by res judicata; frivolous. Even if not barred, Mayes’s multiple waivers waived the speedy-trial claim |
| 2. Whether the trial court failed to inform Mayes of full Tier III registration/notification requirements (Crim.R. 11) | The State: claim is res judicata; trial court substantially complied and Mayes showed no prejudice | Mayes: plea was unknowing/involuntary because court did not advise him of all Tier III community notification details | Court: barred by res judicata; court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 and omission did not show prejudice; frivolous |
| 3. Whether the initial time waiver was invalid because counsel did not inform Mayes of possible defenses or charges | The State: issue is res judicata and, if not, better addressed in post-conviction proceedings due to evidence outside the record | Mayes: the waiver listed no charges when signed and counsel should have investigated/raised speedy-trial issues once charges were known | Court: barred by res judicata; record contains no evidence to support the claim; frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure where appointed counsel concludes appeal is frivolous)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (res judicata bars issues that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (1977) (prejudice required to set aside plea as involuntary)