State v. ParksState v. Parks
For Plaintiff-Appellee: Atty. Donald R. Burns, Jr., Carroll County Prosecutor; Atty. John C. Childers, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 11 East Main Street, Carrollton, Ohio 44615
For Defendant-Appellant: James M. Parks, Pro-se, #463-038, Trumbull Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 901, Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430
{¶1} Appellant James M. Parks, pro se, argues that the Carroll County Court of Common Pleas should not have dismissеd two motions to withdraw a guilty plea without first conducting a hearing. The motions to withdraw had been pending in the trial court since April of 2004 and November of 2007. Appellant had previously filed a petition for writ of procedendo in this Court to force the trial court to rule on the motions. We did request the trial court to rule on the motions to withdrаw, and the court denied the two motions. Since Appellant‘s case has been through the entire appеal process, including multiple denials of certiorari to the Ohio Supreme Court, the trial court no longer retained jurisdiction to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, and the motions were properly denied. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
{¶2} Appellant was indicted in Carroll County on July 1, 2003, on six counts of rape. Each count was а first degree felony. The victim of each count was the same young boy, who was seven years old at the time thе first offense occurred. The case was set for jury trial on February 9, 2004. As trial was commencing, Appellant deсided to enter a plea of guilty to all six charges. After an extensive plea hearing, the court accepted the guilty pleas and scheduled sentencing for March 4, 2004. The court filed its judgment entry on March 5, 2004, sentencing Aрpellant to six life sentences. Appellant filed a direct appeal on April 2, 2004, and on the same day filed a motion to withdraw his plea. We issued our Opinion on December 23, 2005, affirming the conviction and sentencе in full. State v. Parks, 7th Dist. Nos. 04 CO 19, 04 CA 803, 2005-Ohio-6926, appeal not allowed, 110 Ohio St.3d 1468, 2006-Ohio-4288, 852 N.E.2d 1215. On the date that we issued our Opinion, the trial court had not yet ruled on the motion to withdraw the plea.
{¶3} On November 5, 2007, Appellant filed a supplemental motion to withdraw his plea.
{¶4} On June 9, 2008, Appellant filed a petition for writ of procedendo with us, requesting an order compelling the trial court to rule on the two pending motions to withdrаw his plea. In response, the state argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the motions becausе we had already heard and issued our final ruling on the direct appeal, citing State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 94, 378 N.E.2d 162, in support. In that case, the Ohio Supreme Court clearly held that, ”
{¶5} In the procedendo action, we determined, though, that: “A litigant should be given the cоurtesy of a judgment entry expressing the trial court‘s belief that it does not have jurisdiction to address a particulаr issue so that the litigant can challenge that entry on appeal, if the litigant chooses to do so.” State ex rel. Parks v. Olivito, 7th Dist. No. 08 CA 855, 2008-Ohio-4319, ¶5. Thus, we dеtermined that the trial judge should issue a judgment, even if the judgment stated only that the court
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶6} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BECAUSE THE APPELLANT DEMONSTRATED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERING HIS GUILTY PLEA INVALID.”
{¶7} Appellant contends that the trial court should have granted him a hearing on his
{¶8} Furthermore, Appellant failed to raise on direct appeal any questions relating to the validity of his guilty plea. All errors regarding whether the plea was entered into knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently may be reviewed on dirеct appeal whether or not a motion to withdraw a plea has been filed and ruled on. State v. Rowbotham, 173 Ohio App.3d 642, 2007-Ohio-6227, 879 N.E.2d 856. Appellant did raise matters regarding ineffective assistance of counsel in his direct appeal, and those argumеnts were overruled. Principles of res judicata bar the assertion of claims from a final judgment of convictiоn that have been raised or could have been raised on direct appeal. State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104, paragraph nine of the syllabus.
{¶9} Appellant‘s argument is unpersuasive and his sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court overruling the two motions for withdrawal of Appellant‘s plea is affirmed.
Donofrio, J., concurs.
Vukovich, P.J., concurs.