State v. Walker
2011 Ohio 4005
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- In 2009 Walker pled guilty to 47 counts including engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, forgery, and theft, with a 12-year prison term and 3 years mandatory post-release control.
- Direct appeal was dismissed in 2009; Walker later filed Crim.R. 32.1/Sarkozy motions challenging his pleas, which were denied in 2010.
- A December 2009 PRC notification hearing occurred by video; a January 2010 withdrawal-of-pleas/Crim.R. 32.1 motion followed.
- In 2010 the trial court issued an amended sentencing entry clarifying merger: odd counts merged into preceding even counts, certain counts dismissed or merged as agreed.
- Walker appealed the September 7, 2010 amended entry; the court held the issues were not reviewable due to res judicata and nunc pro tunc effect.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding the challenged issues could not be reviewed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea entries were valid given due process concerns | Walker | Walker | Unreviewable; res judicata prevents review |
| Whether failure to advise on PRC consequences rendered pleas involuntary | Walker | Walker | Unreviewable; res judicata prevents review |
| Whether the trial court failed to advise on maximum penalties for odd-numbered counts | Walker | Walker | Unreviewable; res judicata prevents review |
| Whether alleged misapplication of allied offenses doctrine affected sentencing | Walker | Walker | Unreviewable; res judicata prevents review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (post-Sarkozy: Crim.R. 32.1/plea withdrawal standard)
- Shinkle v. State, 27 Ohio App.3d 54 (1986) (nunc pro tunc sentencing entries generally do not extend time to appeal)