{¶ 2} In cases 11-08-04 and 11-08-05, Defendant-Appellant, Jason A. Zamora, appeals the judgments of the Paulding County Court of Common Pleas denying his petitions for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Zamora asserts that the trial court failed to state findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying his petitions; that the trial judge was biased; that he was denied effective assistance of counsel; and, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to charge him with escape. Based on the following, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
{¶ 3} In February 2007, in case no. 11-08-041, the Paulding County Grand Jury indicted Zamora on one count of forgery in violation of R.C.
{¶ 4} On February 28, 2007, a hearing was held on the motion to revoke bond, and Zamora's new bond was set at $50,000. The trial court remanded Zamora to the custody of the Paulding County Sheriff to be booked on the forgery charge. Zamora then escaped from custody and went to his apartment across from the courthouse where he was eventually apprehended. The trial judge and Zamora's attorney saw Zamora running from the courthouse. Zamora claims that he left to check on his three children (ages twelve, ten, and two), who were left home alone while he and his fiancé attended the hearing.3
{¶ 5} In April 2007, in case no. 11-08-054, Zamora was indicted on one count of escape, a violation of R.C.
{¶ 6} Thereafter, a plea agreement was reached and read into the record. Zamora entered pleas of guilty to the forgery and escape charges, and the State dismissed the charge for possession of cocaine. The trial court sentenced Zamora to a prison term of twelve months on the forgery conviction to be served concurrently to a four-year prison term on the escape conviction, and also ordered Zamora to pay restitution and costs. The following day, Zamora filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing.
{¶ 7} Zamora appealed the judgments of conviction and sentencing in the two cases. See State v. Zamora, 3d. Dist. Nos. 11-07-04 and 11-07-05,
{¶ 8} On November 9, 2007, while his appeal was pending, Zamora filed pro se petitions for post-conviction relief pursuant to R.C. 2153.21. In his petitions, Zamora claimed his convictions and sentences should be set aside because: (1) he had ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney observed Zamora committing the "alleged escape;" (2) the trial judge should have *5 disqualified himself because he witnessed Zamora running from the courthouse; and, (3) the trial judge "committed an error of law" in "charging" him with a third degree felony instead of a fifth degree felony for the escape.
{¶ 9} In February 2008, the trial court issued a judgment entry dismissing Zamora's petition without a hearing.
{¶ 10} It is from this judgment that Zamora appeals, presenting the following assignments of error for our review.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING [ZAMORA'S] POST-CONVICTION PETITION BY FAILING TO MAKE FINDINGS [sic] FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF R.C.2953.21 (C).
[ZAMORA'S] CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUEPROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL WERE VIOLATED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS BIASED AND PREJUDICED AND WAS NOT NEUTRAL AND DETACHED IN THE ESCAPE PROCEEDINGS AND ON THE POST-CONVICTION PETITION.
[ZAMORA] WAS PREJUDICED AND DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON THE CHARGE OF ESCAPE.
THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED [ZAMORA'S] CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND LACKED JURISDICTION TO INDICT CONVICT AND *6 SENTENCE [ZAMORA] ON THE CHARGE OF ESCAPE BECAUSE [ZAMORA] WAS NOT UNDER DETENTION.
Before addressing Zamora's assignments of error, we will first address the nature of petitions for post-conviction relief.
{¶ 12} Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 13} Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the doctrine of res judicata bars a defendant from raising any defenses or constitutional claims *7
in a petition for post-conviction relief under R.C.
{¶ 15} Additionally, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires proof that trial counsel's performance fell below objective standards of reasonable representation and that the defendant was prejudiced as a result. State v. Bradley (1989),
{¶ 17} R.C.
{¶ 18} In the present case, the trial court issued a two-page judgment entry addressing each of Zamora's claims and explaining why each was without merit. In this judgment entry, the trial court stated,
The Court further finds that the fact that the defendant fled from the officer taking him to the County Jail was never a disputed evidentiary fact and that neither counsel for the Defendant nor this Judge were ever likely to be a material witness in these proceedings; and,
The Court therefore finds that there was no necessity for counsel for the Defendant to withdraw as said counsel nor any necessity for this Judge to disqualify or recuse himself from presiding over these proceedings.
(Feb. 2008 Judgment Entry, p. 1.)
{¶ 19} The trial court further explained that the judge was not responsible for charging Zamora with anything; the Paulding County Grand Jury indicted Zamora with escape in violation of R.C.
{¶ 20} Upon review, we conclude that the trial court's judgment entry included adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law to satisfy the requirements of R.C.
{¶ 21} Accordingly, Zamora's first assignment of error is overruled. *10
{¶ 23} First, the fact that the trial judge witnessed Zamora's escape was apparently known by Zamora at the time of his guilty plea and first appeal, so he could have raised this issue at those times. However, he failed to do so. Therefore, this assignment of error is waived and barred by res judicata. Furthermore, as noted in the judgment entry, the fact that Zamora ran from the courthouse was never a disputed issue in the case. Moreover, Zamora's rights to a "fair trial" were never compromised because there was no trial — Zamora entered a guilty plea.
{¶ 24} Zamora's second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 26} Zamora raises numerous additional grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time in this appeal. An appellate court can only address those arguments presented to the trial court in the original petition; therefore, any new arguments cannot be considered for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., State v. Garrett, 7th Dist. No. 06-BE-67,
{¶ 27} The Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized an exception to the general rule, holding that res judicata will not bar claims of ineffective assistance of counsel where the issue was not heard on direct appeal. State v. Hester (1976),
{¶ 28} Zamora was represented by a different attorney on his direct appeal, so he could have raised his issues concerning ineffective assistance of trial counsel *12
at that time. In fact, this very issue was raised in his direct appeal. Zamora has not provided any "new competent, relevant and material evidence outside the record" that was not available or known to him at the time of his guilty plea and original appeal. See State v.Pordash, 9th Dist. No. 05CA008673,
{¶ 29} Accordingly, the third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 31} Once again, Zamora presents no issues (either in his petition or the additional issues argued in his appellate brief) that could not have been raised on direct appeal, and in some instances were addressed on direct appeal. See State v. *13 Zamora,
{¶ 32} Zamora continues to ignore the fact that his guilty plea was a complete admission of his guilt to the charges stated in the indictment. See Crim. R. 11(B)(1). Zamora has never claimed that his plea was not voluntary or that he did not understand the nature of the charges or the maximum penalty possible. As this Court has stated in response to his direct appeal, "Zamora is simply unhappy with the sentence the trial court imposed; a sentence which Zamora was advised the trial court could impose for a third-degree felony (and to which he stated his understanding)." Zamora,
{¶ 33} There was nothing that prevented Zamora from raising any of these issues either at trial or in his direct appeal. As a result, he is precluded from arguing these issues in a petition for post-conviction relief. As this Court has previously stated:
We note that R.C.
2953.21 does not provide an alternative track for direct appeal of a criminal conviction and sentence. Neither is a petition for post-conviction relief a substitute for a direct appeal, nor a means of an additional or supplementary direct appeal of such conviction and sentence. We reiterate that the fundamental premise of a post-conviction petition is to afford a criminal defendant the opportunity to raise alleged constitutional infirmities that could not have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.
State v. Chaiffetz, 3d Dist. No. 9-99-23,
{¶ 34} All of the issues raised in Zamora's petition for post-conviction relief are barred by res judicata. In his reply brief, Zamora implies that res judicata is not applicable because he claims that his appeal was filed on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, not his original conviction. Again, this argument fails for several reasons. First, we find that in his original appeal Zamora did raise several issues concerning his original conviction in addition to the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Furthermore, Appellate Rule 4 requires that all issues for appeal be filed within thirty days of the judgment entry. A petition for post-conviction relief is not an appropriate vehicle for arguing issues that should have been brought on direct appeal because res judicata bars all such issues that were,or could have been, raised on appeal.
{¶ 35} Accordingly, Zamora's fourth assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 36} Having found no errors prejudicial to the appellant herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Judgments Affirmed. SHAW, P.J., and PRESTON, J., concur.