STATE OF OHIO v. HOMELL T. CALHOUN
C.A. No. 27059
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
June 18, 2014
[Cite as State v. Calhoun, 2014-Ohio-2628.]
MOORE, Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 2011 01 0027 (A)
{¶1} Defendant, Homell Calhoun, appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
I.
{¶2} In 2011, Mr. Calhoun pleaded no contest to charges pertaining to possession of heroin. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to nine years of incarceration, and we affirmed Mr. Calhoun‘s conviction on appeal. State v. Calhoun, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26144, 2012-Ohio-2374. In 2013, Mr. Calhoun filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, arguing that the trial judge had misinformed him of the mandatory nature of his sentence during the plea colloquy.
{¶3} In a journal entry dated August 13, 2013, the trial court denied Mr. Calhoun‘s motion because he had failed to attach evidentiary documents to his motion and because his
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLYING WITH CRIMINAL RULE 11 BY FAILING TO GIVE [MR. CALHOUN] NOTICE OF THE MAXIMUM PENALTIES BEFORE ACCEPTING HIS PLEA.
{¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Calhoun argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to withdraw his pleas because: (1) the court failed to substantially comply with
{¶5} “In State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94, 97 (1978), the [Ohio] Supreme Court determined that a trial court loses jurisdiction over a case when an appeal is taken and, absent a remand, does not regain jurisdiction subsequent to the court of appeals’ decision.” State v. Robertson, 9th Dist. Medina No. 12CA0094-M, 2013-Ohio-4556, ¶ 8, quoting State v. Hillman, 9th Dist. Wayne Nos. 12CA0028, 12CA0029, 2013-Ohio-982, ¶ 7. See also State v. Phillips, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25408, 2011-Ohio-1348. “The Ohio Supreme Court further explained that, because a motion to withdraw a plea is ‘inconsistent with the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court‘s conviction premised upon the guilty plea,’ the trial court has no jurisdiction to consider such a motion after an appellate court has affirmed the conviction.” Robertson at ¶ 8, quoting Special Prosecutors at 97.
{¶7} Further, as we explained in State v. Knuckles, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26801, 2013-Ohio-4173, ¶ 9:
It is well established that res judicata prohibits the consideration of issues that could have been raised on direct appeal. State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, ¶ 16-17, citing State v. Hutton, 100 Ohio St.3d 176, 2003-Ohio-5607, ¶ 37; State v. D‘Ambrosio, 73 Ohio St.3d 141, 143 (1995). “This prohibition extends to claims made in support of motions to withdraw a plea.” State v. Molnar, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25267, 2011-Ohio-3799, ¶ 9, citing State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, ¶ 59.
{¶8} Here, Mr. Calhoun could have, but did not raise the issues of which he now complains in his direct appeal. Therefore, his argument is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
{¶9} Accordingly, Mr. Calhoun‘s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶10} Mr. Calhoun‘s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Costs taxed to Appellant.
CARLA MOORE
FOR THE COURT
CARR, P. J.
WHITMORE, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
HOMELL T. CALHOUN, pro se, Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.