STATE OF OHIO v. MARCELLAS L. BOULWARE
C.A. No. 2023-CA-32
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY
April 12, 2024
2024-Ohio-1388
WELBAUM, J.
Trial Court Case No. 21CR0636 (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court)
ROBERT LOGSDON, Attorney for Appellee
WELBAUM, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant Marcellas L. Boulware appeals from a judgment of the Clark County Court of Common Pleas overruling his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 3} After engaging in plea negotiations with the State, Boulware agreed to plead guilty to an amended first-degree-felony count of voluntary manslaughter. In exchange for Boulware‘s guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss all the other counts and specifications in the indictment. The parties also agreed to have a presentence investigation conducted prior to sentencing.
{¶ 4} On February 10, 2022, the trial court held a plea hearing and accepted Boulware‘s guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on March 10, 2022, during which it briefly explained the Reagan Tokes Law indefinite sentencing scheme and imposed the maximum possible sentence of 11 to 16.5 years in prison. Boulware filed a direct appeal from his conviction in which he raised a single assignment of error that challenged several aspects of his sentence.
{¶ 5} On appeal, this court found that although Boulware‘s 11-to-16.5-year prison sentence was proper, the trial court had failed to orally inform Boulware at the sentencing hearing of certain notifications under
{¶ 6} Four months later, Boulware filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to
{¶ 7} The trial court disagreed with Boulware‘s claim and overruled his motion to withdraw his guilty plea in a brief, one-sentence entry filed on May 25, 2023. Boulware thereafter filed the instant appeal from the trial court‘s judgment overruling his motion; he raises a single assignment of error for review.
Assignment of Error
{¶ 8} Under his assignment of error, Boulware contends that the trial court erred
Standard of Review
{¶ 9} Appellate courts review a trial court‘s ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. State v. Rozell, 2018-Ohio-1722, 111 N.E.3d 861, ¶ 25 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph two of the syllabus. “A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that is unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343, 2013-Ohio-966, 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 34. Most instances of abuse of discretion occur when a trial court makes a decision that is unreasonable. AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990). “A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision.” Id. “Absent an abuse of discretion on the part of the
Law and Analysis
{¶ 10} Upon review, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Boulware‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the argument raised therein was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and otherwise lacked merit.
{¶ 11} “The doctrine of res judicata bars a criminal defendant from raising and litigating in any proceedings any defense or claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised on direct appeal from the conviction.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Young, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20813, 2005-Ohio-5584, ¶ 8. “[T]he Supreme Court of Ohio has noted that ‘[r]es judicata generally bars a defendant from raising claims in a
{¶ 12} As previously discussed, Boulware filed his motion to withdraw his guilty plea after he had already filed a direct appeal from his conviction. In his motion, Boulware challenged the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature of his guilty plea based on the trial court‘s failure to advise him of the Reagan Tokes Law notifications set forth in
{¶ 13} Even if res judicata did not bar the issue raised in Boulware‘s motion, the trial court‘s decision overruling the motion did not amount to an abuse of discretion, because the argument raised in Boulware‘s motion failed to establish a manifest injustice warranting the withdrawal of his guilty plea.
{¶ 14} “Under
{¶ 15} “To ensure that a defendant is entering a felony plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the trial court must engage the defendant personally and explain the rights set forth in
{¶ 16} As previously discussed, Boulware argued in his motion to withdraw his guilty plea that his guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the trial court did not advise him of the Reagan Tokes Law notifications set forth in
{¶ 17} We note that
{¶ 18} Boulware has failed to present any authority supporting the notion that the
{¶ 19} In State v. Searight, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-230060, 2023-Ohio-3584, the First District Court of Appeals noted that although the defendant had argued that the trial court‘s failure to apprise him of the Reagan Tokes Law notifications under
{¶ 20} In State v. Conner, 3d Dist. Wyandot No. 16-21-01, 2021-Ohio-1769, the Third District Court of Appeals specifically held that the trial court did not err by failing to advise the defendant, at the plea hearing, of one of the notifications under
{¶ 21} In State v. Massie, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2020-CA-50, 2021-Ohio-3376, this court held that the appellant was not entitled to have his guilty plea vacated where the trial court gave no explanation of the Reagan Tokes indefinite sentencing scheme at all during the plea hearing, let alone the specific
{¶ 22} In the present case, the record of the plea hearing establishes that the trial court not only correctly explained the maximum penalty for Boulware‘s offense, but that it also briefly explained the Reagan Tokes Law indefinite sentencing scheme. Specifically, the trial court told Boulware that his maximum penalty was a $20,000 fine and an indefinite sentence of 11 to 16.5 years in prison, and then explained that “whatever sentence the court imposes, that there‘s a presumption that you would be released after serving the lower number.” Plea Hearing Tr. (Feb. 10, 2022), ¶ 7. The trial court also stated the following:
So the maximum penalty is 11 to 16 and a half years in prison. If that were imposed, there would be a presumption that you would be released after serving 11 years. *** And then depending upon your conduct in the penitentiary, the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections could overcome the presumption and incarcerate you for the full high-end term.
We find that the trial court‘s explanation sufficiently advised Boulware of the
Because the argument in Boulware‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was barred by res judicata and otherwise lacked merit, the trial court‘s decision to overrule the motion was not an abuse of discretion. Therefore, Boulware‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶ 23} Having overruled Boulware‘s assignment of error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
LEWIS, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.