State v. ZhaoState v. Zhao
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
{¶ 1} Appellant, Hong Zhao, appeals the decision of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶ 2} On June 4, 1997, appellant entered a plea of guilty to vandalism, tampering with records, and denying access to a computer. The trial court accepted appellant‘s guilty plea and sentenced him to a total term of imprisonment of two years. Appellant did not appeal this sentence.
{¶ 3} On August 24, 1998, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to
{¶ 4} On July 8, 2003, appellant filed a second motion to withdraw his guilty plea, this time, pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 5} Appellant timely appealed the trial court‘s denial of his second motion to withdraw his guilty plea, setting forth one assignment of error for review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
“The trial court erred in denying appellant‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea filed purusant to R.C. §
{¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea filed pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 7} This Court finds that appellant‘s argument is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. “Under the doctrine of res judicata, any issue that was or should have been litigated in a prior action between the parties may not be relitigated.” State v. Meek, 9th Dist. No. 03CA008315, 2004-Ohio-1981, citing State v. McMinn (June 16, 1999), 9th Dist. No. 2927-M.
{¶ 8} In the present case, appellant failed to perfect an appeal of his conviction. Furthermore, he failed to appeal the trial court‘s denial of his first motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to
III.
{¶ 9} The decision of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that 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 Lorain, 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.
Exceptions.
Baird, J., Batchelder, J., conc