State v. Nooks
2014 Ohio 4828
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Indicted in 1998 on two aggravated murder counts with DP specs, aggravated robbery, and weapon under disability; pleaded guilty to aggravated murder with firearm spec and aggravated robbery; sentenced to 28 years to life.
- Direct appeal in 1999 claimed the plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered; appellate court affirmed, finding the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.
- In 2008, filed Civ.R. 60(B) and Colon challenge to alleged indictment defect; trial court denied and appellate court affirmed.
- In 2009, first Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw guilty plea denied; argued lack of jurisdiction and defective indictment; denied on res judicata grounds.
- In 2010, motion for de novo sentencing; argued void postrelease control; denied and affirmed on appeal.
- On Nov. 8, 2013, filed the instant Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw plea after sentencing; April 2014 trial court denied as barred by res judicata; timely appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw plea is barred by res judicata. | Nooks argued the issues were not resolved and could be raised via post-sentencing motion. | Nooks asserted manifest injustice and constitutional violation warranting withdrawal. | Yes; court held res judicata barred the claims and denied the motion. |
| Whether the post-sentencing withdrawal motion properly sought manifest injustice. | Nooks contended plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. | Nooks failed to show manifest injustice to warrant withdrawal. | No; the motion was barred and denied. |
| Whether trial counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance and failure to object affected Crim.R. 11 validity. | Ineffective assistance undermined knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea. | Counsel reasonable; issues raised previously. | Raised issues barred by res judicata; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (Crim.R. 32.1 motion to correct manifest injustice after sentencing)
- State v. Bush, 2002-Ohio-3993 ((2002)) (post-sentencing Crim.R. 32.1 manifest injustice standard)
- State v. Muhumed, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-1001, 2012-Ohio-6155 (2012) (res judicata and Crim.R. 32.1 applicability to post-sentencing motions)
- State v. Tran, 2012-Ohio-1072 (2012) (res judicata; issues could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Ikharo, 2011-Ohio-2746 (2011) (res judicata; cannot relitigate previously raised issues)
- State v. Hagler, 2010-Ohio-6123 (2010) (Crim.R. 32.1 post-sentencing motions and manifest injustice)
- State v. Hazel, 2009-Ohio-6780 (2009) (res judicata and post-sentencing claims)
- State v. Conteh, 2009-Ohio-6780 (2009) (Crim.R. 32.1 and appellate preclusion)