State v. MoncriefState v. Moncrief
Rendered on October 15, 2013
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Kimberly M. Bond, for appеllee.
Christopher T. Moncrief, pro se.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
KLATT, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Christopher T. Moncrief, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his motiоn to withdraw guilty plea. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm that judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} In 2004, appellant was indicted with one count of аggravated murder with a death-penalty specification and one count of aggravated robbery. Both counts also contained firearm specifications. Appellant proceeded to a jury trial but, during that trial, appellant decided to enter a guilty plea to one count of murder and a firearm specification. The trial court accepted his guilty plea, found him guilty, and sentenced him accordingly. Appellant did not timely appeal his conviction.
II. The Appeal
{¶ 4} Appellant appeals and assigns the following errors:
- [1.] The trial court erred to the prejudice of the appellant in dismissing the latest motion to withdraw guilty plea based upon res judicata grounds when such petition was his first in violation of appellant‘s absolute right to procedural due process of law under the Ohio and U.S. Constitution.
- [2.] It was prejudicial error for the court below to dismiss on res judicata grounds where appellant alleged the ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- [3.] It was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial error for the court below not to order an evidentiary hearing in this case.
- [4.] An evidentiary hearing and relief was warranted where appellant presented allegations that connoted constitutional structural defect and the lack of personal jurisdiction in the trial court.
A. The Trial Court‘s Denial of Appellant‘s Second Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea
{¶ 5} Because appellant‘s first and second assignments of error both address the trial court‘s aрplication of res judicata to deny his second motion to withdraw, we will address them together.
{¶ 6}
{¶ 7} A motion made pursuant to
{¶ 8} The doctrine of res judicata may bar claims made in successive postsentence motions to withdraw plea that were or could have been made in a previous motion. State v. Tovar, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-1106, 2012-Ohio-6156, ¶ 17-18; State v. Cale, 11th Dist. No. 2000-L-034 (Mar. 23, 2001). For example, the defendant in Tovar filed a motion to withdraw guilty plea in which he asserted a claim thаt the trial court failed to comply with
{¶ 9} Appellant argues, however, that this is not his second motion to withdraw guilty plea because the trial court originally construed his first motion to withdraw as a petitiоn for postconviction relief. We disagree. Even though the trial court stated that it would construe his first motion as a petition for postconviction relief, it went on to address the merits of his motion as one seeking the withdrawal of a plea. Additionally, in his first appeal, we addressed the trial court‘s decision as one denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Moncrief at ¶ 9-14. Thus, the present motion is appellant‘s second postsentence motion to withdraw a plea.
{¶ 10} We overrule appellant‘s first and second assignments of error.
B. The Trial Court‘s Denial оf Appellant‘s Motion Without a Hearing
{¶ 11} Appellant contends in his third and fourth assignments of error that the trial court should have held a hearing on his motion to withdraw. We disagree.
{¶ 12} A trial court is not automatically required to hold a hearing on a post-sentence motion to withdraw а guilty plea. State v. Spivakov, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-32, 2013-Ohio-3343, ¶ 11, citing State v. Barrett, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-375, 2011-Ohio-4986, ¶ 9. A hearing must only be held if the facts alleged by the defendant, accepted as true, would require that the defendant be allоwed to withdraw the plea. Id. A trial court‘s decision whether to hold a hearing on a postsentence motion to withdraw is subject to review for abuse of discretion. Id. at ¶ 10.
{¶ 13} Here, because the application of res judicata to appellant‘s second motion to withdraw was clear, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by deciding the motion without a hearing. State v. Britford, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-646, 2012-Ohio-1966, ¶ 12, citing State v. Thomson, 6th Dist. No. L-05-1213, 2006-Ohio-1224, ¶ 58. Accordingly, we overrule appellant‘s third and fourth assignments of error.
{¶ 14} The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant‘s second postsentence motion to withdraw guilty plea without a hearing. Accordingly, we overrule appellant‘s four assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
BROWN and SADLER, JJ., concur.