[Cite as State v. Garrett , 2014-Ohio-3462.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GALLIA COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 13CA13

vs. : JAMES C. GARRETT, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Defendant-Appellant. :

_________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES:

APPELLANT PRO SE: James C. Garrett, No. 678-131, Chillic othe Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 5500, Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Jeff Adkins, Gallia County Prosecuting Attorney, 18 Locust Street, Room 1267, Gallipolis, Ohio 45631

_________________________________________________________________ CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT DATE JOURNALIZED: 8-5-14 ABELE, P.J. {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Gallia Count y Common Pleas Court judgment that overruled a “petition to vacate or set aside judgme nt of conviction” file d by James C. Garrett, defendant below and appe llant herein. Appella nt assigns the following errors for review 1 :

1 Appellant’s brief neglects to set forth a statement of the assignments of erro r as App.R. 16(A)(3) requires. Thus, we take the two assignments of error from the argument portion of the brief. Also, another assignment of error appears to be sandwiched between the brief’s “statement of the issues” and “statement of the ca se.” Although we do not include that assignment of error in our discussion, we would have nevertheless overruled it for the same reason(s) that we overrule the other assignments of error.[Cite as State v. Garrett , 2014-Ohio-3462.] FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S GUILTY PLEA DUE TO THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S CLEAR INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL RIGHTS HE WAS WAIVING WHEN HE PLEAD GUILTY.” [SIC]

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED SENTENCING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BECAUSE IT FAILED TO APPORPRIATELY CONSIDER THE RECORD AND MITIGATING FACTOES R.C. 2929.12 AND 2953.31.” [SIC] {¶ 2} In 2012, the Gallia County Grand Jury retu rned an indictment that charged appellant with (1) murder in vi olation of R.C. 2903.02(B), (2) aggrav ated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), and (3) conspiracy in viola tion of R.C. 2923.01(A)(1). Appellant initially pled not guilty to all counts, but later agreed to plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter (R.C. 2903.04(A)) in exchange for eleven years imprisonment and the dismissal of the other charges. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced a ppellant to serve the agreed upon eleven year term of incarceration. No appeal was taken from that judgment. {¶ 3} Appellant commenced the instant case on August 28, 2013 with his “petition to vacate or set aside judgment of conviction or sentence.” Appellant challenged his prior

conviction and sentence on cons titutional grounds, and the trial court correctly treated the petition as a petition for postconviction relief. See e.g. State v. Creech , 4 th Dist. Scioto No. 12CA3500, 2013-Ohio-3791, at ¶15; State v. Lewis , 4 th Dist. Lawrence No. 11CA29, 2013-Ohio-1327, at ¶2, fn. 2. On September 5, 2013, after the trial court noted various deficiencies in the petition, as well as appellant’s failure to appeal his original judgment of conviction and sentence, the c ourt denied his request for re lief. This appeal followed.GALLIA, 13CA13 3 {¶ 4} We jointly consider appellant ’s assignments of errors for ease of discussion. To begin, all of the appellant 's alleged errors involve his origin al conviction. These, however, are issues that could have been raised during a first a ppeal of right. Appellant did not file such an appeal and, as we discuss later in this opi nion, is now barred from raising those issues. {¶ 5} Consequently, the only issue that appellant can raise at this time is whether the trial court erred by ove rruling his petition. We conclude that it did not. {¶ 6} R.C. 2953.21(C) provide s, inter alia: “The court shall consider a petition that is timely filed . . .In making such a determination, the court sh all consider, in addition to the petition, the supporting affidavits, and the documentary evidence , all the files and records pertaining to the proceedings against the petitioner, incl uding, but not limited to, the indictment, the court's journal entries, the journalized records of the clerk of the court, and the court reporter's transcript . The court reporter's transcri pt, if ordered and certified by the court, shall be taxed as court costs.” (Emphasis added.) {¶ 7} Appellant argued, in essen ce, that he did not understand any of the proceedings. However, appellant sub mitted no evidentiary materials to s upport his argument. Although the record on appeal contains a transcript of the plea hearing, that transcript was requested after the trial court overruled his pe tition. No other evidentiary materials were before the court. For this reason alone, we find no error in the trial court’s decision. {¶ 8} Second, and more important, the issues a ppellant now raises could have been raised, but were not, in a first appeal of right. It is well-settled that the doctrine of res judicata bars raising issues on postconvicti on relief that could have been ra ised on direct appeal. See e.g.

State v. Smith , Ross App. No. 09CA3128, 2011-Ohio- 664, at ¶10; State v. Damron , Ross App. No. 10CA3158, 2010-Ohio-6549, at ¶20. Appellant did not appeal his 2013 sentencing entry and, thus, is now barred from ra ising any constitutional issues.GALLIA, 13CA13 4 {¶ 9} We further note that the transcript of the February 27, 2013 change of plea hearing reveals that appellant answered in the affirmative when the trial court asked if the plea was his “agreement.” Appellant also answered in the negative when asked if he had any “questions about it.” The following colloquy also occu rred between appellant and the trial court: “COURT: Okay, thank you. Now Mr. Ga rrett, before I can accept the plea of guilty I need to advise you of your rights and ask you certain questions to determine if your pleas is being made voluntarily, meaning of your own freewill [sic ] and accord, and also that it’s be ing made knowingly and intelligently, meaning that you understand what’s happening here this morning. So except for the underlying plea agreement, which has al ready been stated for purposes of the record, have there been any threats or pro mises made to you to get you to change your plea in this case? [APPELLANT]: No, your honor.” {¶ 10} If we reviewed appellant's arguments on their merits, we believe that in light of this exchange it would be difficult to argue that appellant’s guilty plea was somehow involuntary. As the trial court aptly noted, appellant has submitted no evidentiary material to rebut his admission that his guilty plea to a reduced charge was his free and voluntarily act. Appellant submitted nothing to show that he did not understand the context of those proceedings. {¶ 11} For all of the foregoing reasons, we here by overrule appellant 's assignments of

error and affirm the tria l court's judgment.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.[Cite as State v. Garrett , 2014-Ohio-3462.] JUDGMENT ENTRY It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed and that appellee rec over of appellant costs

herein taxed. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court dir ecting the Gallia County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Pr ocedure. Exceptions. Harsha, J. & McFarland, J.: C oncur in Judgment & Opinion

For the Court

BY:___________________________ Peter B. Abele Presiding Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this documen t constitutes a final j udgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.