State v. ZinnState v. Zinn
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶ 1} Troy Zinn appeals the Jackson County Court of Common Pleas’ decision to deny his Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Zinn asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it deniеd his motion on the basis of res judicata without an evidentiary hearing. Because we find that the arguments raised in Zinn‘s Crim.R. 32.1 motion were either raised in earlier proceedings, or could have been raised in those proceedings, we disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I.
{¶ 2} “In June 1997, a grand jury charged Defendant-Appellant Troy Zinn with felonious assault, a violation of
{¶ 3} “In September 1997, Zinn pled guilty to the assault and kidnapping charges in exchange for the state dismissing the rape charge. Thе trial court sentenced Zinn to consecutive terms of seven years for the felonious assault and nine years for the kidnapping.
{¶ 4} “In 1998, Zinn filed a delayed appeal in this Court, which we denied, and a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in the trial court. The trial court dеnied the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Zinn appealed the trial court‘s denial but voluntarily dismissed the appeal.
{¶ 5} In 1999, Zinn filed a motion for post-conviction relief. In his petition, Zinn alleged that he had newly discovered evidence in support of his pеtition. Specifically, he alleged that his physician, who had prescribed him the drugs he was taking at the time of the offense, had lost his medical license for his prescribing practices. In later filings, Zinn alleged that the side effects of the combination of thе medications and the improper prescribing practices were the newly discovered evidence on which he based his petition. However, at the hearing on his petition, Zinn relied only on facts relating to the side effects of the combination of medications he was taking at the time of the offense.
{¶ 6} “After the hearing, the trial court denied Zinn‘s petition because Zinn filed it beyond the one-hundred-eighty-day limit provided in
{¶ 7} “Zinn appealed the trial court‘s denial of his petition for postconviction relief. In March 2001, we affirmed the trial court‘s decision, finding that appellant‘s petition was untimely filed. We also concluded that competent, сredible evidence supported the trial court‘s finding that Zinn was not unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts concerning the side effects of the combination of prescribed medication he was taking.
{¶ 8} “In March 2002, Zinn filed a motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. Appellant again relied on the same `new evidence’ as the basis of his motion. Zinn asserted that the adverse psychotic reaction caused by the interaction of the various medications he was taking at the time of the offense prevented him from forming the requisite criminal intent. Further, Zinn claimed that the adverse drug interaction was not known by the `medical community’ at the time he was convicted and that it was subsequently discovered.
{¶ 9} “Zinn included with his filings the affidavit of Robert N. Ludwig, M.D., whо stated that from 1994 to 1999, the Physician‘s Desk Reference did not describe any contraindications between Zinn‘s three medications. Doctor Ludwig stated that based on medical evidence, newly discovered since 1999, the administration of these medications in combination has been prohibited because it can cause aggressive and violent behavior. This is the second affidavit executed by Dr. Ludwig that has been filed with the trial court. This affidavit is essentially the same as the affidavit the doctor executed earlier, which was filed in support of Zinn‘s petition for post-conviction relief. The only difference between the affidavits is that in this second affidavit, Dr. Ludwig states that the evidence of adverse drug interactions between Zinn‘s medications was not widely known until aftеr 1999, when the Physician‘s Desk Reference included the contraindications.
{¶ 10} “In May 2002, the trial court denied Zinn‘s motion, finding that it raised the same issues presented by his prior motions.” State v. Zinn, Jackson App. No. 02CA11. We affirmed the trial court‘s decision, but on the basis that Zinn could not benefit from a motion for a new trial because he pled guilty and waived his right to a trial. We noted that the proper vehicle for relief for guilty pleas is a
{¶ 11} In November 2003, Zinn filed a
{¶ 12} Zinn appeals and raises the following assignments of error: “[I.] It was error for the trial court to dismiss the Criminаl Rule 32.1 motion upon grounds of estoppel. [II.] It was error for the trial court to rule that there was no evidence of manifest injustice.”
II.
{¶ 13} Because both assignments of error challenge the trial court‘s decision to deny Zinn‘s
{¶ 14} The decision to grant or deny a
{¶ 15}
{¶ 16} A trial court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. State v. Vincent, Ross App. No. 03CA2713, 2003-Ohio-3998, ¶ 10. “Instead, a trial court need only conduct an evidentiary hearing when the facts as alleged by the defendant, indicate a manifest injustice would occur if the plea was allowed to stand.” Id. Moreover, аn evidentiary hearing is not required if the arguments presented by the petitioner are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Id.
{¶ 17} “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by сounsel 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 оf conviction, or on appeal from that judgment.” State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, paragraph nine of the syllabus. This doctrine has been extended to
{¶ 18} Here, Zinn argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it summarily denied his
{¶ 19} Zinn‘s entire basis for the
{¶ 20} Zinn relies heavily on a statement made by this court in his 2003 appeal from the trial court‘s deniаl of his 2002 motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. State v. Zinn, Jackson App. No. 02CA11. Zinn repeatedly asserts that this court advised him that the proper vehicle for his claims was a
{¶ 20} Because the arguments regarding thе medication were previously before the trial court and ruled on by that court, and because any new arguments could have been raised in the 1999 proceeding, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Zinn‘s motion without an evidentiary hеaring.
{¶ 21} Assuming arguendo that the doctrine of res judicata did not bar Zinn‘s
{¶ 22} Accordingly, Zinn‘s assignments of error are without merit.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED and that the Aрpellee recover of Appellant costs herein taxed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Jackson County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed sixty days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow Appellant to file with the Ohio Supreme Court an appliсation for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the sixty day period, or the failure of the Appellant to file a notice of appeal with thе Ohio Supreme Court in the forty-five day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Ohio Supreme Court. Additionally, if the Ohio Supreme Court dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
Abele, P.J. and Kline, J.: Concur in J