State v. JohnsonState v. Johnson
Rendered on October 26, 2023
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Brad L. Tammaro, for appellee. Argued: Brad L. Tammaro.
On brief: Yeura R. Venters, Franklin County Public Defender, and Timothy E. Pierce, for appellant. Argued: Timothy E. Pierce.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
{1} Defendant-appellant, Brandon A. Johnson, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his mоtion to withdraw his guilty plea. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{2} In July 2003, Johnson, a juvenile at the time, was bound over from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, because there was probable cause to believe he committed the offenses of aggravated murdеr, in violation of
{3} In January 2004, Johnson moved to suppress an eyewitness identification and oral statements he had made to a social worker and his juvenile court probation officer. A 3-day suppression hearing followed. The trial court granted Johnson‘s motion to suppress the identification and his statements. On aрpeal, this court concluded the trial court did not err in suppressing Johnson‘s statements to the probation officer, but it erred in suppressing both Johnson‘s statements to the social worker and the eyewitness identification. State v. Johnson, 163 Ohio App.3d 132, 2005-Ohio-4243, ¶ 42, 49, 59 (10th Dist.). On remand, Johnson pled guilty to murder, with a firearm specification, and aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced Johnson to 15 years to life in prison as to the murder conviction, with an additional 3 years for the firearm specification, and 3 years in prison for the aggravated robbery conviction, to be served consecutively. Johnson did not timely appeal. In July 2014, he moved for leave to file a delayed appeal. Because he failed to demonstrate a reasonable explanation for his nearly 8-year delay in attempting to file an appeal, this court denied the request for leave. State v. Johnson, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-581 (Aug. 26, 2014) (memorandum decision).
{4} In February 2019, Johnson filed a motion for judicial release pursuant to
{5} Johnson appeals.
II. Assignments of Error
{6} Johnson presents the following five assignments of error for our review:
[I.] The lower court erred when it overruled Appellant‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea in case no. 03CR-5039. The court‘s actions violated Appellant‘s Right to Due Process of Law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Due Course of Law provisions of Article I, Sections 1 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution, State v. Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d 309 (2020),
R.C. 2929.02(B) ,R.C. 2929.12 ,Crim. R. 11(C)(2)(a) , andCrim R. 32.1 .[II.] The lower court erred when it failed to award sixty (60) additional days of jail time credit towards Appellant‘s sentence imposed in case no. 03CR-5039. The court‘s actions violated Appellant‘s Right to Due Process of Law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Due Course of Law provisions of Article I, Sections 1 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution,
R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i) ,R.C. 2967.191 ,R.C. 2949.12 , andOhio Adm.Code 5120-2-04(B) .[III.] Assuming, without conceding, the lower court complied with
Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and lawfully informed Appellant at the July 17, 2006 hearing Appellant was subject to a mandatory fiftеen years to life sentence underR.C. 2929.02(B) as it relates toR.C. 2903.02 (cf. Appellant‘s First Assignment of Error, supra), the imposition of a mandatory fifteen years to life sentence underR.C. 2929.02(B) as it relates toR.C. 2903.02 is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile offenders like Appellant becauseR.C. 2929.02(B) precludes judicial consideration of youth at sentencing under that statute in violation of Appellаnt‘s Right to Due Process of Law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Due Course of Law provisions of Article I, Sections 1 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution, Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), State v. Long, 138 Ohio St.3d 478 (2014), State v. Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d 309 (2020), andCrim.R. 52(B) .[IV.] The lower court plainly erred when it failed at thе July 17, 2006 hearing to merge Appellant‘s convictions for murder under
R.C. 2903.02 and aggravated robbery underR.C. 2911.01 . The court‘s actions violated Appellant‘s Right to Due Process of Law and Right Against Double Jeopardy under the Fifth andFourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Due Course of Law provisions and Right Against Double Jeopardy under Article I, Sections 1, 10, and 16 of the Ohio Constitution, R.C. 2941.25 , andCrim.R. 52(B) .[V.] Appellant rеceived ineffective assistance of counsel in case no. 03CR-5039. This violated Appellant‘s Right to Due Process of Law and Right to Counsel under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Due Course of Law and Right to Counsel provisions of Article I, Sections 1, 10, and 16 of the Ohio Constitution.
III. Discussion
{7} For ease of discussion, we address the assignments of еrror out of order. Johnson‘s second assignment of error alleges the trial court erred in not awarding the requested additional jail-time credit. This assignment of error presents an issue not ripe for review.
{8} During the pendency of Johnson‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, he filed a motion for recalculation of jail-time credit, claiming his entitlement to 60 dаys more than the 1,105 days he received. But in the trial court‘s July 2021 decision and entry denying Johnson‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, it did not address his pending request for additional jail-time credit. Both parties assert the trial court implicitly denied Johnson‘s request for additional jail-time credit. This assertion is based on the well-settled principle that when a trial court does not rule on a pending motion prior to entering final judgment, such motion generally is deemed to have been implicitly overruled. See, e.g., State v. Robinson, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-128, 2021-Ohio-3496, ¶ 49. Under the circumstances of this case, however, we find this principle does not apply.
{9} As permitted by statute and rule, Johnson filed his motions to withdraw his guilty plea and for additional jail-time credit after the trial cоurt entered its judgment of conviction and sentence. Pursuant to
{10} Because the trial court did not rule on Johnson‘s jail-time credit request, his second assignment of error is not ripe for review. We decline to address the merits of his jail-time credit request in the first instance.
{11} Next, we consider together Johnson‘s third and fourth assignments of error. His third assignment of error allеges the trial court‘s imposition of a mandatory 15 years to life sentence under
{12} “Res judicata generally bars a defendant from raising claims in a
{13} Johnson‘s merger and constitutional arguments do not rely on evidence that would have been outside a direct appeal record. Thus, these arguments could have been made in a direct appeal. Even so, Johnson did not file a timely direct appeal. Instead, in July 2014, he filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal, which this court denied. Because the issues raised in Johnson‘s third and fourth assignments of error could have been raised in a direct appeal from his judgment of conviction and sentence, but were not, res judicata bars him from raising the issues now.
{14} Accordingly, we overrule Johnson‘s third and fourth assignments of error.
{15} Johnson‘s first and fifth assignments of error involve interrelated issues, and, therefore, will be addressed together. Johnson‘s first assignment of error generally alleges the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea under
{16} “A
{17} The decision to grant or deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea made under
{18} Ineffective assistance of counsel can constitute manifest injustice to support the withdrawal of a guilty plea pursuant to
{19} We first consider Johnson‘s contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the June 22, 2021 guilty plea withdrawal motion hearing because his counsel did not argue
{20} Moreover, the trial court reasonably disbelieved Johnson‘s assertion that his trial counsel, prior to his guilty plea, misinformed him as to his eligibility for judicial release. Judicial release is a statutory creation authorizing a sentencing court to reduce an offender‘s prison term under рarticular circumstances. See
{21} In alleging manifest injustice, Johnson also argues that neither the trial court nor plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, properly informed him regarding his jail-time credit or thаt he would be ineligible for judicial release if he pled guilty. He asserts the guilty plea form, and the state‘s summary of the terms of the plea, were misleading or at least ambiguous as to his earned jail-time credit and judicial release eligibility, resulting in his misunderstanding of these issues. He claims this misunderstanding means his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that he would not have pled guilty if he had a full understanding of these issues. Thus, he argues there existed a manifest injustice. We are unpersuaded.
{22} The trial court reasonably found Johnson‘s assertions supporting his motion to withdraw his guilty plea not credible. In addition to refuting Johnson‘s assertion that his trial counsel misinformed him regarding judicial release, his trial counsel exрlained in his affidavit that, after this court reversed the trial court‘s suppression rulings, the status of the
{23} Johnson further argues his motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted because the trial court did not prоperly account for his age at the sentencing hearing, the sentencing entry indicated that only the firearm specification carried mandatory incarceration, the state‘s response to his judicial release motion indicated he was eligible for judicial release, and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction‘s paperwork suggested his sentence was not entirely mandatory. These arguments are unpersuasive, however, as they are not directly pertinent to the circumstances of Johnson‘s guilty plea, which is the focus of a
{24} Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea under
IV. Disposition
{25} Having overruled Johnson‘s first, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error, and having found his second assignment of error not ripe for our review, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
DORRIAN and EDELSTEIN, JJ., concur.