STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MARCUS E. WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 3-17-05
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY
October 2, 2017
[Cite as State v. Williams, 2017-Ohio-8022.]
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 15-CR-0343 Judgment Affirmed
Marcus E. Williams, Appellant
Robert J. Kidd for Appellee
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Marcus Williams (“Williams“), brings this appeal from the April 5, 2017, judgment of the Crawford County Common Pleas Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief.
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On October 27, 2015, Williams was indicted on 24 counts of Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor in violation of
{¶3} On April 14, 2016, Williams filed a motion to suppress and/or in limine, seeking to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search and seizure of his alleged property. On June 2, 2016, Williams filed a second motion to suppress seeking to suppress statements he made during police interviews.
{¶4} On June 29, 2016, Williams entered into a written negotiated guilty plea wherein he agreed to plead guilty to 24 counts of Pandering Sexually Oriented Material Involving a Minor in violation of
{¶5} After conducting a
{¶6} On December 2, 2016, Williams filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief arguing that the State conducted a warrantless search of his property and that the State conducted improper, warrantless surveillance of him.
{¶7} On December 8, 2016, Williams filed an “amendment” to his post-conviction petition, adding an argument that the State violated his right against self-incrimination.
{¶8} On February 24, 2017, the State filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Williams had failed to state grounds for post-conviction relief.
{¶9} On February 27, 2017, Williams filed his own Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that he should be granted judgment in his favor.
{¶11} On April 5, 2017, the trial court filed its entry in the matter, ultimately denying Williams‘s petition. The trial court determined that Williams could have filed a direct appeal of his conviction but he chose not to, and that Williams‘s guilty plea obviated his ability to argue the matters he was presenting in his post-conviction petition. The trial court also found no ineffective assistance of counsel, to the extent that Williams was arguing that issue. The trial court concluded that Williams‘s claims were meritless, and his petition was overruled.
{¶12} It is from this judgment that Williams appeals, asserting the following assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error No. 1
The trial court erred in denying petition to exclude evidence obtained through unconstitutional warrantless electronic surveillance.
Assignment of Error No. 2
The trial court erred in denying appellant‘s petition contending that an agent of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (BCI) was not empowered by statute to investigate in the circumstances present at the beginning of the investigation.
Assignment of Error No. 3
The trial court erred in denying appellant‘s petition asserting that the investigation was carried out under Ohio statutes, or interpretations of such statutes, that violate the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Ohio as well as Federal law.
The trial court erred in denying appellant‘s petition that included an assertion stating evidence of offenses was obtained through electronic surveillance when Ohio statutes do not include as “designated offenses” the offenses that were being investigated.
Assignment of Error No. 5
The trial court erred in denying appellant‘s petition seeking suppression of evidence obtained by coercing him into unknowingly surrendering his constitutional rights.
{¶13} Due to the nature of the disposition, we elect to address all of the assignments of error together.
First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Assignments of Error
{¶14} On appeal, Williams makes a number of arguments contending that the trial court erred by denying his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims multiple suppression-related issues and he argues that there were multiple defects in the investigation of him.
{¶15} At the outset, we note that Williams entered into a jointly recommended sentence, which severely limited his rights on appeal given that the jointly recommended sentence was imposed by the trial court pursuant to
{¶16} Furthermore, all of the claims made by Williams are arguments that could have been raised on a direct appeal but were not and as such they are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment.“). Accordingly, Williams‘s assignments of error are not well-taken, and they are all overruled.
{¶17} For the foregoing reasons Williams‘s assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the Crawford County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.
/jlr