State v. Walters, 2017 Ohio 5722

Walters was indicted on sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03(A)(5)) with a victim-under-13 specification (making it a second-degree felony with a mandatory term) and initially also charged with rape; he pleaded guilty to sexual battery and the rape count was dismissed.
At plea hearing the court questioned Walters about rights and accepted his plea; sentencing was set for later. Walters moved to withdraw claiming plea induced by fear of life sentence and venue issues; motion denied.
At the original sentencing the court’s oral and written statements included language referring to a seven-year mandatory term with a two-year minimum, but the entry also contained contradictory “hybrid” language suggesting mandatory and discretionary subterms.
On direct appeal this court held the trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 as to explaining penalties but found the sentence included an unlawful hybrid term; the judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.
On remand the trial court removed the contradictory language and reissued a resentencing entry; Walters appealed again, arguing (1) his plea was not knowing/voluntary because the court failed to explain maximum and mandatory nature of sentence, and (2) the court failed to advise that a guilty jury verdict must be unanimous.
The Fourth District affirmed the resentencing judgment, holding both arguments barred by res judicata.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Walters’s guilty plea was involuntary because the trial court failed to explain the maximum and mandatory nature of potential sentence	State: Court previously substantially complied with Crim.R. 11; penalties were explained	Walters: Plea was not knowing/voluntary because court didn’t adequately explain maximum/mandatory penalties	Barred by res judicata; identical claim was rejected on direct appeal
Whether the plea was involuntary because the court failed to advise that a guilty jury verdict must be unanimous	State: Issue was not raised previously and could have been raised on direct appeal	Walters: Had to be informed jury unanimity requirement at plea	Barred by res judicata; claim could have been raised on direct appeal and was not

State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (defines res judicata bar for convicted defendants represented by counsel)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (issues that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred by res judicata)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (appeal from resentencing after reversal of void sentence is not a first direct appeal; claims not raised earlier are barred)