STATE OF OHIO, Appellee v. ANGEL L. TORRES, Appellant
C.A. No. 19CA0076-M
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA
July 13, 2020
State v. Torres, 2020-Ohio-3691
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE No. 16CR0361
TEODOSIO, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Angel L. Torres, appeals from the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, denying his motion to withdraw his no contest plea. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} This Court has previously summarized the facts and procedural history of this case in a prior appeal:
On June 21, 2016, Trooper Baker of the Ohio State Highway Patrol stopped Torres for having excessively dark window tint. During the stop, Trooper Baker conducted an exterior sniff of Torres’ vehicle using his canine partner. The canine alerted to the passenger-side door. During a search of the vehicle, troopers discovered 110 grams of cocaine inside the vehicle.
The Medina County Grand Jury subsequently indicted Torres on one count of possession of cocaine in violation of
R.C. 2925.11(A) and(C)(4)(f) , a felony of the first degree. The indictment included a major drug offender specification pursuant toR.C. 2941.1410 and a forfeiture specification pursuant toR.C. 2981.04 . Torres pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded through the pretrial process.Torres ultimately filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized and any statements made by Torres as a result of the traffic stop. Following a hearing, the trial court
denied the motion. Torres changed his plea to no contest to the sole charge in the indictment and the related specifications. The trial court then found Torres guilty of the charge and specifications and sentenced him according to law.
State v. Torres, 9th Dist. Medina No. 17CA0038-M, 2018-Ohio-1173, ¶ 2-4. On appeal, Mr. Torres challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, and we affirmed. Id. at ¶ 6-16. Mr. Torres filed an application to reopen the appeal pursuant to
{¶3} Mr. Torres now appeals from the trial court’s judgment and raises four assignments of error for this Court’s review. Because our analysis is dispositive of the appeal as a whole, we have consolidated all four assignments of error and will address them together.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE
THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA TO BAR APPELLANT FROM RAISING HIS INEFFECTIVE CLAIMS RAISED IN HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS NO-CONTEST PLEA.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO
TRIAL COUNSEL CAMPBELL’S PERFORMANCE WAS DEFICIENT BECAUSE COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO TROOPER BAKER’S TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT SGT. LAUGHLIN WAS DOING DURING THE TRAFFIC STOP, IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL AND IN VIOLATION OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THREE
TRIAL COUNSEL CAMPBELL AND DOWNING WERE BOTH DEFICIENT IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR FOUR
TRIAL COUNSEL CAMPBELL’S PERFORMANCE WAS DEFICIENT BECAUSE HE FAILED TO REQUEST AN INDEPENDENT WEGHING (SIC) OR WEIGHING OF THE CONTRABAND AT ISSUE IN VIOLATION OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL UNDER THE U.S. CONST.
{¶4} In his assignments of error, Mr. Torres argues that (1) the trial court erred in relying on res judicata to deny his motion to withdraw his plea of no contest and (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
{¶5}
{¶6} The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated: “The general rule of law is that the trial court loses jurisdiction to take action in a cause after an appeal has been taken and decided.” State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94, 97 (1978). The trial court only retains jurisdiction over issues not inconsistent with that of the appellate court to
{¶7} This Court has recognized that Special Prosecutors also applies to a motion to withdraw a no contest plea. State v. Davie, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27961, 2016-Ohio-2816, ¶ 12, citing State v. Hillman, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 15AP0031, 2016-Ohio-870, ¶ 9. There is no dispute that Mr. Torres pled no contest and was convicted in this matter. Torres, 2018-Ohio-1173, at ¶ 4. This Court then affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. Id. at ¶ 16. Afterward, Mr. Torres filed a motion to withdraw his no contest plea in the trial court. Pursuant to Special Prosecutors, however, the trial court did not have authority to consider that motion. Special Prosecutors at 97-98. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion or committed reversible error by denying Mr. Torres’ motion to withdraw his no contest plea, regardless of the court’s reasoning behind its decision.
{¶8} To the extent Mr. Torres claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel, those arguments could have all been raised on direct appeal. State v. Guy, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29496, 2020-Ohio-3011, ¶ 25. “Res judicata bars claims that were either raised or could have been raised on direct appeal.” Id. As Mr. Torres failed to raise his ineffective assistance claims in his direct
{¶9} Mr. Torres’ first, second, third, and fourth assignments of error are all overruled.
III.
{¶10} Mr. Torres’ assignments of error are all overruled. The judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
THOMAS A. TEODOSIO
FOR THE COURT
CARR, J. CONCURRING IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
{¶11} I concur in judgment only as I would overrule Torres’s assignments of error solely on the basis of res judicata. While I am mindful that this Court has applied the Supreme Court of Ohio’s holding in State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978), in a variety of scenarios, I would decline to apply that precedent in this case. As noted by the majority, the trial court denied Torres’s motion for a new trial on the basis of res judicata. I would overrule his assignments of error on the same basis.
APPEARANCES:
ANGEL L. TORRES, pro se, Appellant.
S. FORREST THOMPSON, Prosecuting Attorney, and VINCENT V. VIGLUICCI, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.