State v. CurryState v. Curry
DeAnthony B. Curry, pro se, PID: A622-007, Lake Erie Correctional Institution, 501 Thompson Road, P.O. Box 8000, Conneaut, OH 44030 (Defendant-Appellant).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, DeAnthony Curry, appeals from the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas overruling his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm.
{¶2} Appellant pled guilty to attempted complicity to aggravated robbery, a felony of the second degree. At the sentencing hearing, appellant was advised that he was sentenced to four years in prison with a three-year term of post-release control.
{¶3} Appellant was resentenced on July 18, 2013, following this court‘s remand order. Appellant then filed a second appeal, seeking to appeal the trial court‘s resentencing entry. State v. Curry, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0071, 2014-Ohio-5375. This court construed appellant‘s “Notice for Review of Judgment” as a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal; we held that appellant‘s motion for leave was procedurally defective, and this court, therefore, was without discretion to allow his “delayed appeal.” Id. at ¶11.
{¶4} On April 11, 2014, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was overruled by an April 29, 2014 judgment entry of the trial court. Appellant did not appeal the April 29, 2014 judgment. Thereafter, on May 23, 2014, appellant filed a successive motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied the successive motion to withdraw his plea in an August 11, 2014 judgment entry. Appellant filed the instant appeal of the trial court‘s denial of his May 23, 2014 motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant filed an appellate brief, and the state filed a response. Appellant filed a “request to file a supplemental brief,” which was granted by this court. Thereafter, appellant filed a reply brief which was also considered by this court on appeal.
{¶5} On appeal, appellant asserts the following assignments of error:
[1.] The appellant was deprived the effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment[s] to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.
[2.] The trial court erred to the prejudice of the [appellant] by not compelling the state to provide the discovery under
Ohio Crim.R.16 and Bill of Particulars to the defense. The [appellant] was denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 under the Ohio Constitution.[3.] When the trial court accepted his guilty plea pursuant to
[R.C.] 2937.09 , the [appellant] was deprive[d] due process and his right to confrontation under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.
{¶6}
{¶7} Here, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his plea after his sentencing. Thus, pursuant to
{¶8} However, claims raised in a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea which were raised or could have been raised in a direct appeal are barred by res judicata. See, e.g., State v. Lorenzo, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2007-L-085, 2008-Ohio-1333, ¶21; State v. Green, 11th Dist. Ashtabula Nos. 2005-A-0069 & 2005-A-0070, 2006-Ohio-6695, ¶13; and State v. McDonald, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2003-L-155, 2004-Ohio-6332, ¶22. Appellant‘s assignments of error challenge matters which were or could have been argued on direct appeal or in appellant‘s previous motion to withdraw his plea, which was never appealed.
{¶9} Pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata,
a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment.
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus (emphasis sic.).
{¶10} Here, the arguments appellant asserts in his
{¶11} Appellant‘s first, second, and third assignments of error are without merit.
{¶12} Based on the opinion of this court, the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.
COLLEEN MARY O‘TOOLE, J.,
concur.