State v. RobersonState v. Roberson
{¶ 2} On November 15, 1991, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted appellant on one count of drug abuse in violation of
{¶ 3} Appellant initially pled not guilty. However, on August 13, 1992, appellant, accompanied by counsel, pled guilty as charged. By judgment entry dated August 22, 1992, the trial court sentenced appellant to a determinate term of six months on each count to be served concurrently. Appellant filed no direct appeal of his conviction and sentence.
{¶ 4} On February 26, 1993, appellant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, pursuant to
{¶ 5} On April 29, 1994, appellant filed another pro se motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. By judgment entry dated June 2, 1994, the trial court denied said motion. Appellant filed no appeal from this ruling. Then, on July 11, 1994, appellant filed a pro se petition to vacate judgment, in the form of a post-conviction petition for relief pursuant to
{¶ 6} On February 10, 1995, appellant filed a pro se petition to vacate or set aside sentence. However, by judgment entry dated June 30, 1995, the trial court denied appellant's motion to defer hearing and request for extension, and denied appellant's petition to vacate or set aside sentence. Appellant appealed said decision; this Court affirmed the trial court in State v.Roberson (January 22, 1996), Stark App. No. 95CA0238, unreported. Appellant thereafter attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain leave for a delayed appeal, once in 1996 and once in 1997, from the underlying August 22, 1992 judgment entry of conviction and sentence.
{¶ 7} On September 24, 1997 appellant filed another motion for leave to file a delayed appeal, this time in regard to the trial court's judgment entry of April 22, 1993, which had denied his post-sentence
{¶ 8} On June 3, 2003, appellant filed a "Motion for a New Withdrawal of Guilty Plea Hearing." Appellant therein essentially argued that the 1993 hearing on his motion to withdraw guilty plea was handled by the same attorney as had assisted him during plea negotiations, and that appellant had, at that time, already alleged that said attorney was incompetent. See Appellant's Motion, June 3, 2003, at 1. Nonetheless, on June 10, 2003, the trial court issued a judgment entry denying appellant's aforementioned motion. Appellant timely appealed and herein raises the following three Assignments of Error:
{¶ 9} "I. The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a new withdraw of guilty plea hearing, pursuant to criminal rule 32.1, of the ohio revised code [,] to correct a `manifest injustice' that was directly caused by the violation of defendant's due process rights guaranteed by the
{¶ 10} "II. The trial court committed error by dismissing appellant's motion for a new withdraw of guilty plea hearing without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether defense counsel had an actual conflcit [sic] of interest in representing appellant during the original hearing on his motion to withdraw guilty plea.
{¶ 11} "III. The trial court violated appellant's
{¶ 13}
{¶ 14} Moreover, as we noted previously, in State v.Roberson (June 14, 1999), Stark App. No. 1997CA00343, this Court heard a delayed appeal based on appellant's claim that the trial court failed to provide an adequate evidentiary
{¶ 15} Accordingly, appellant's First and Third Assignments of Error are overruled.
{¶ 17} In the case sub judice, based on our previous conclusion that the doctrine of res judicata prohibits appellant from raising claims that could have raised in his earlier
{¶ 18} Appellant's Second Assignment of Error is therefore overruled.
{¶ 19} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Wise, J., Hoffman, P.J., and Farmer, J., concur.