State v. Patrick
2013 Ohio 5020
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In June 2011, Alonzo Patrick pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary (first-degree felony with a one-year firearm specification), abduction (third-degree felony), and having weapons while under disability (third-degree felony); he was sentenced to a total of seven years imprisonment.
- Patrick filed an untimely appeal on October 31, 2012; that appeal was dismissed and the dismissal was upheld on reconsideration.
- On November 30, 2012, Patrick filed a post‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea; the trial court denied the motion on December 18, 2012.
- Patrick raised 12 assignments of error in the motion, alleging trial-court errors and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The trial court (and this court on appeal) applied the doctrine of res judicata to bar most claims as ones that were or could have been raised on direct appeal.
- The court also addressed the postrelease-control claim and the absence of a transcript (patron’s failure to obtain a transcript) and presumed regularity where the record was incomplete.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Patrick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Patrick may withdraw his guilty plea post‑sentence absent showing of manifest injustice | Motion to withdraw should be denied because defendant failed to show manifest injustice | Patrick sought withdrawal raising multiple claims of trial error and ineffective counsel | Denied—postsentence withdrawal requires manifest injustice; Patrick did not show it |
| Whether claims about sentencing (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, incorrect journal entry) can be relitigated in the motion | These sentencing claims are barred by res judicata because they were or could've been raised on direct appeal | Court failed to consider statutory sentencing factors and entered incorrect journal entry | Barred by res judicata; appellant should have raised on direct appeal |
| Whether ineffective-assistance claims can be considered now given the record | State argues the claims are barred by res judicata and unsupported because no transcript/evidence outside record was provided | Trial counsel was ineffective in several respects (arrest, suppression, plea advice, specification/allied-offense issues) | Barred by res judicata; without transcript or outside evidence the claims cannot be evaluated and could have been raised on direct appeal |
| Whether the trial court failed to inform Patrick of mandatory postrelease control rendering sentence void | State points to the journal entry indicating five years of mandatory postrelease control and consequences | Patrick argues he was not properly informed of mandatory postrelease control | Not barred by res judicata per Fischer, but on this record (journal entry) court presumed proper advisement; claim fails without transcript to rebut entry |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1976) (establishes abuse‑of‑discretion standard for reviewing denial of postsentence motion to withdraw plea)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (Ohio 1995) (defines res judicata as barring subsequent actions arising from same transaction)
- State ex rel. Bardwell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 127 Ohio St.3d 202 (Ohio 2010) (courts presume regularity of proceedings when appellant fails to provide transcript)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (sentences lacking statutorily mandated postrelease control are void and not always barred by res judicata)