State v. HobbsState v. Hobbs
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 18, 2021
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, Gregory Oсhocki, and Frank R. Zeleznikar, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, L.L.P., Michael D. Meuti, and Nathan P. Nasrallah, for appellant.
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Isaac Hobbs (“Hobbs”), appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm.
{¶ 3} In April 2020, aрproximately seven and a half years after he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months in prison, Hobbs filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that his plea should be vacated because he had pleaded guilty to a nonexistent offense, i.e., attempted felonious assault, and that his invalid conviction was used to enhance a federal sentence, which he was currently serving. See generally United States v. Hobbs, N.D.Ohio No. 1:17-CR-280, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43845 (Mar. 18, 2019).
{¶ 4} The trial court denied Hobbs’s motion and this appeal followed. Hobbs raises the following assignments of error for our review:
I. The trial court erred in denying Defendant Isaac Hobbs’s (“Hobbs”) Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea and Set Aside Judgment for Attempted Felonious Assault (“Mоtion to Vacate”).
II. The trial court abused its discretion by denying Hobbs’s Motion to Vacate without any opinion, findings, rationale or explanation, and without giving due consideration to the well-established legal principles set forth in Hobbs’s Motion.
{¶ 5} In the first assignment of error, Hobbs сlaims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
{¶ 6} A motion to withdraw a guilty plea is governed by
{¶ 7} Res judicata generally bars a defendant from raising claims in a
{¶ 8} Hobbs claims that res judicata does not apply because his guilty plea was “void.” The Ohio Supreme Court recently explained, however, that “[a] sentence is void when a sentencing court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case or personal jurisdiction over the accused.” State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, ¶ 42. A judgmеnt is voidable, not void, when the court has jurisdiction to act and may be successfully challenged on direct appeal. Id. at ¶ 26. A judgment is not void if it is entered by a court with personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. State v. Henderson, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4784, ¶ 40, following Harper at ¶ 4-6 and 41.
{¶ 9} If a voidable claim is challenged after a direct appеal, it is subject to res judicata. State v. Simpson, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-866, 2020-Ohio-6840, ¶ 13. In this case, Hobbs did not to file a direct appeal and the time to file a direct appeаl has long passed. Because Hobbs did not file a direct appeal, the trial court’s judgment was voidable, the court retained jurisdiсtion, and his voidable claim is subject to res judicata.
{¶ 10} This court has previously held res judicata applies to a defendant who аttempted to withdraw his plea to attempted felonious assault. In State v. Nicholson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97567, 2012-Ohio-1550, the defendant pleaded
any issue regarding the validity of Nicholson’s plea to attempted felonious assault is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. * * * Nicholson could have raised the issue on direct appeal but did not do so. Accordingly, any argument regarding the validity of his plea is now barred by res judicata.
{¶ 11} Hobbs’s claim challenging his conviction for attempted felonious assault would have been immediately apparent when he entered his guilty plea and again when sentence was imposed. Res judicata precludes him from belatedly raising that claim in a postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
{¶ 12} Based on the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Hobbs’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.
{¶ 13} The first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 14} In the second assignment of error, Hobbs contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion without issuing an opinion. According to Hobbs, this is evidence that the trial court did not thoroughly consider his motion.
{¶ 15} Hobbs’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea for the attempted felonious assault offense was made pursuant to
{¶ 16} The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 17} The trial court did not err in denying Hobbs’s postsentеnce motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was filed more than seven years after he was sentenced for attempted felonious assault. Any issue Hobbs now raises could have been brought on direct appeal; thus, his claim is barred by res judicata. The trial court also did nоt abuse its discretion in denying his motion without issuing findings of fact or conclusions of law as none were required under
{¶ 18} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court direсting the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
LARRY A. JONES, SR., JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, A.J., and
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., CONCUR