[Cite as State v. Hamilton, 2024-Ohio-4504.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DARKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

 Appellee

v. 

THOMAS HAMILTON

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

C.A. No. 2023-CA-28

Trial Court Case No. 23-CR-00054

(Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas 

Court)

. . . . . . . . . . .

O P I N I O N

Rendered on September 13, 2024

. . . . . . . . . . . 

RICHARD L. KAPLAN, Attorney for Appellant

 

JAMES D. BENNETT, Attorney for Appellee

 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EPLEY, P.J.

{¶ 1} Thomas Hamilton appeals from a judgment of the Darke County Court of 

Common Pleas, which found that he had violated the terms of his community control and 

ordered him to successfully complete the MonDay Program and then continue his 
-2-

previously-ordered community control. For the following reasons, the trial court’s 

judgment will be affirmed.

I. Procedural History

{¶ 2} On March 23, 2023, Hamilton was indicted on one count of aggravated 

possession of drugs (methamphetamine) in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)/(C)(1)(a). 

When the indictment was filed, Hamilton was on community control supervision for 

another case (Darke C.P. No. 22-CR-141). Hamilton was personally served with the 

indictment while meeting with his probation officer. At his arraignment on the new 

charge, Hamilton was informed of alleged violations of his community control sanctions, 

all of which involved his continued drug use and/or failure to submit to a urine screen.

{¶ 3} On August 2, 2023, Hamilton pled guilty to aggravated possession of drugs, 

a fifth-degree felony. The court proceeded immediately to sentencing, during which it 

imposed community control sanctions, as jointly recommended by the parties. A written 

judgment entry was filed the following day. Hamilton did not appeal from the judgment 

of conviction.

{¶ 4} Approximately two months later, on October 2, 2023, Hamilton apparently 

received a written notice from his probation officer of alleged violations of his community 

control, and he was ordered to appear in court the following day for an initial appearance. 

The notice alleged that Hamilton had failed to abstain from illegal drug use by testing 

positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine on July 26, July 31, August 7, 

September 13, and September 20, 2023. It also alleged that he had failed to comply 

with treatment by being discharged from Recovery and Wellness for “continued drug use 
-3-

through-out treatment” and “inappropriate comments to staff.” At the October 3 initial 

appearance, the court informed Hamilton of the allegations and his rights, appointed 

counsel for him, and scheduled a probable cause hearing for October 19, 2023. The 

court told Hamilton that the allegations may also be violations of his intervention in lieu of 

conviction in Case No. 22-CR-141, which another judge would address.

{¶ 5} At the October 19 hearing, Hamilton admitted to all the allegations except the 

allegation that he had made inappropriate comments to staff. The trial court found that 

Hamilton had violated the terms of his community control. As for disposition, the State

recommended that Hamilton be continued on community control with the additional 

requirements that he complete the MonDay Program and that he be incarcerated until 

accepted for treatment. Defense counsel requested a three-month program in 

Portsmouth.

{¶ 6} The trial court gave Hamilton the option of either (1) 90 days in jail followed 

by continued community control sanctions or (2) a week in jail followed by the MonDay 

Program (as soon as he qualified) and then continued community control sanctions as 

previously ordered. Hamilton elected the second option but asked for time to get his 

affairs in order before reporting to jail. The court granted that request. Hamilton was 

ordered to report to jail no later than 1:00 p.m. on October 20, 2023. The court further 

ordered Hamilton to attend and successfully complete the MonDay Program and then to 

continue with his community control sanctions upon his release. Hamilton was 

transported to the MonDay Community Correctional Institution on October 30, 2023. 

{¶ 7} Hamilton appeals from the trial court’s judgment. We note that the record 
-4-

contains a transcript of a December 14, 2023 hearing involving allegations that Hamilton 

failed to successfully complete the MonDay Program; that transcript is not pertinent to 

this appeal. 

II. Analysis

{¶ 8} In his sole assignment of error, Hamilton claims that his guilty plea to 

aggravated possession of drugs was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. 

He argues that “there was no recitation of facts upon which the Court could base a 

conviction.” Hamilton’s appellate counsel acknowledges that he could find no Ohio case 

law requiring a recitation of facts for a felony plea. However, he asks that we revisit the 

law on this issue. The State responds that the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)

during the plea hearing and that “[t]here is nothing presented here that would necessitate 

a review or reversal of settled law.”

{¶ 9} Res judicata bars Hamilton’s argument. It is well established that res 

judicata bars the consideration of issues that could have been raised on direct appeal. 

State v. Saxon, 2006-Ohio-1245, ¶ 17; State v. Shah, 2023-Ohio-2328, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.). 

Under this doctrine, “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 . . . on an appeal from that judgment.” 

(Emphasis added.) State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967), paragraph nine of the 

syllabus; State v. Moody, 2024-Ohio-864, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.).
-5-

{¶ 10} In this case, Hamilton did not file a direct appeal from his August 3, 2023 

judgment of conviction and there is nothing in the record to suggest that he intended this 

appeal to be a delayed direct appeal. To the contrary, the criminal docket statement 

identifies the October 19, 2023 judgment as the judgment on appeal. Hamilton cannot 

challenge the validity of his guilty plea in an appeal from the judgment imposing sentence 

on violations of his community control sanctions. E.g., State v. Cooper, 2019-Ohio-3919, 

¶ 22 (2d Dist.) (“Res judicata bars Cooper from raising an issue on appeal from the 

revocation of his community control sanctions which could have and should have been 

raised on direct appeal from the judgment of conviction in which community control was 

first imposed.”); State v. Turner, 2017-Ohio-4101, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 11} Hamilton’s assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 12} The trial court’s judgment will be affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

TUCKER, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.