STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LAMAR L. CARTLIDGE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 13-21-06
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SENECA COUNTY
October 25, 2021
[Cite as State v. Cartlidge, 2021-Ohio-3787.]
SHAW, J.
Appeal from Seneca County Common Pleas Court, Trial Court No. 17 CR 0166
Judgment Affirmed
APPEARANCES:
Lamar L. Cartlidge, Appellant
Stephanie J. Kiser for Appellee
{1} Defendant-Appellant, Lamar L. Cartlidge (“Cartlidge“), pro se, appeals the March 11, 2021 judgment of the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm.
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
{2} Cartlidge was charged in a superceding indictment with aggravated trafficking in drugs, a fourth-degree felony (Count One); trafficking in cocaine, a fifth-degree felony (Count Two); failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, a third-degree felony (Count Three); tampering with evidence, a third-degree felony (Count Four); possession of cocaine, a fifth-degree felony (Count Five); aggravated trafficking in drugs, a fourth-degree felony (Count Six); and aggravated possession of drugs, a fifth-degree felony (Count Seven). Cartlidge ultimately pled guilty to all counts of the superceding indictment.
{3} On September 13, 2018, the trial court sentenced Cartlidge to the maximum sentence on all counts. The trial court ordered that all of the sentences be served consecutively, for an aggregate term of 144 months in prison, and that they also be served consecutively to the days Cartlidge had remaining on post-release control.
{5} On January 12, 2021, Cartlidge filed a motion in the trial court to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to
{6} It is from this judgment that Cartlidge now appeals, asserting three assignments of error. For ease of discussion, we will address all of the assignments of error together.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE [SIC] ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT‘S POST-SENTENCE
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO NOTIFY THE APPELLANT BEFORE ACCEPTING HIS GUILTY PLEA TO AN OFFENSE HE COMMITTED WHILE ON POST-RELEASE CONTROL THAT PURSUANT TO
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO NOTIFY THE APPELLANT THAT ANY PRISON SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR A VIOLATION OF
{7} Cartlidge first argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on newly discovered evidence. Specifically, Cartlidge argues that he submitted evidence to support his motion that is purportedly outside the record, namely, a transcript of the plea hearing. Cartlidge maintains that this is evidence which is “dehors the record” because it was not made a part of the record for his direct appeal. Cartlidge further argues because of the trial court‘s alleged errors during the plea hearing--that the trial court erred when it failed to notify him of the potential
{8} Appellate review of the trial court‘s denial of a
Analysis
{9}
{10} Here, Cartlidge asserts that he discovered evidence of the trial court‘s alleged consecutive sentence notification errors in the plea hearing transcript. These alleged errors regarding what happened at the plea hearing were clearly available as part of the original trial court record. The transcript of Cartlidge‘s plea hearing is not new facts or evidence, and as such Cartlidge cannot overcome res judicata under the exception for new evidence, outside the record. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err in finding Cartlidge did not present “new evidence” in his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
{11} Moreover, Cartlidge could have challenged that the trial court‘s alleged consecutive sentence notification errors prevented him from making a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty plea on direct appeal, but did not do so. See Straley, 159 Ohio St.3d 82, 2019-Ohio-5206, at ¶ 23 (“Straley could have challenged his guilty plea on direct appeal.“), citing State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509, paragraph one of the syllabus. He did argue on direct appeal
{12} For the foregoing reasons, Cartlidge‘s three assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.
/jlr