State v. AllenState v. Allen
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Michael Lee Allen, appeals the decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas to deny his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm the judgment for the reasons outlined below.
{¶ 2} Allen pled guilty to and was convicted of two counts of rape in August 1998. The trial court sentenced appellant to two consecutive ten-year terms, in accordance with the plea agreement between appellant and the state of Ohio.
{¶ 3} Appellant appealed his conviction. The judgment was affirmed by this court in State v. Allen (June 21, 1999), Warren App. Nos. CA98-08-105, CA98-08-108. Appellant‘s first appeal contested evidentiary issues and an ineffective assistance of counsel claim pertaining to a motion to suppress. In affirming the judgment, this court also found that appellant‘s plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given.
{¶ 4} In 2005, appellant, pro se, filed a
{¶ 5} The trial court denied the motion, stating that the motion to withdraw was untimely, was filed after an appeal on the merits was heard, and did not successfully show that a manifest injustice existed. Appellant appeals this decision, setting forth four assignments of error for this court‘s review.
{¶ 6} Appellant‘s first assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred in denying appellant‘s motion to withdraw his plea by ruling that the motion was untimely when
{¶ 7} Appellant‘s second assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for the stated reason that the motion was filed after an appeal of his conviction was heard.
{¶ 8} Appellant‘s third assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred when it ruled that no manifest injustice existed.
{¶ 9} Appellant‘s fourth assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred when it ruled on his motion at “an ex parte hearing.”
{¶ 10} We address appellant‘s second assignment of error out of order, as this assignment is determinative of this appeal.
{¶ 11}
{¶ 12} However,
{¶ 13} After the direct appeal of a judgment is decided, the trial court has no jurisdiction to consider a defendant‘s
{¶ 14} As we previously noted, appellant‘s judgment of conviction was affirmed in a direct appeal. In affirming, this court found that appellant‘s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. See State v. Allen, Warren App. No. CA98-08-105, CA980-8-108; see, also, State v. Barnett (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 244, 248; State v. Bene, Clermont App. No. CA2005-09-090, 2006-Ohio-3628, ¶ 26 (plea of guilty waives the right to claim that one was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that such ineffective assistance made the plea less than knowing and voluntary).
{¶ 15} The trial court in the case at bar was without jurisdiction to consider appellant‘s post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea on count six. It was proper to dismiss appellant‘s motion. Appellant‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 16} Appellant‘s first, third, and fourth assignments of error also deal with appellant‘s motion to withdraw his plea on count six. Based upon this court‘s ruling under appellant‘s second assignment of error, we moot appellant‘s first, third, and fourth assignments of error.
{¶ 17} We note that appellant, citing to Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, argues to this court under his fourth assignment of error that his constitutional rights were violated when judicial findings were made to “enhance” his prison term with consecutive sentences.
{¶ 18} Appellant did not present this argument as an assigned error, pursuant to
{¶ 19} Judgment affirmed.
Walsh and Young, JJ., concur.