[Cite as State v. Boyd , 2020-Ohio-6866.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. E-20-006 Appellee Trial Court No. 2005 CR 0103

v. Deonta Boyd DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: December 23, 2020

* * * * * Kevin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kristin R. Palmer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appelle e. Deonta Boyd, pro se.

* * * * * PIETRYKOWSKI, J. {¶ 1} Appellant, Deonta Boyd, appeals from the March 12, 2020 judgmen t of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to vacate his guilty plea on the ground that appellant failed to demonstrate a manifest injustic e occurred. For the reasons

which follow we affirm.2. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Mr. Boyd argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to vacate guilty pleas pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 with out a hearing, and finding that Mr. Boyd had not established a manife st injustice.

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR The trial court prejudiced Appellant during the plea hearing w hen it did not inform him of his Constitutional right to compulsory pr ocess, thereby failing to strictly complying with Ohio Crim.R. 11(C)(2 )(c) in

violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Co nstitution

and Article I Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.

THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Mr. Boyd argues that his guilty plea was invalid and void beca use the trial court failed to advise him that post release control would be a part

of his maximum sentence? {¶ 2} In 2006, appellant was represented by two attorneys when he agr eed to enter guilty pleas to reduced charges of aggravated murder, with a fi rearm specification, felonious assault, and aggravated burglary. The trial court se ntenced appellant to consecutive terms of imprisonment of life with eligibility for parole after 20 years, 3 years for the firearm specification conviction, and 8 years f or the aggravated burglary conviction. Appellant did not appeal the judgment of convictio n and sentencing despite having been notified of his right to a limited appeal.3. {¶ 3} Appellant filed his first post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea in 2007, which was denied by the trial court. Appellant did not a ppeal from this decision. On January 27, 2020, appellant filed a second motion to withdra w his guilty plea asserting his plea was not intelligently, voluntarily, or knowi ngly made because he did not understand the maximum penalties involved and had not been notified of his constitutional right to compulsory process. The trial court de nied the motion on March 27, 2020, on the ground that appellant had not demonstrat ed a manifest injustice

had occurred. {¶ 4} In his first assignment of error, appellant presents two argume nts. He first argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his mot ion to vacate his guilty plea without a hearing. We reject this argument because the trial c ourt may determine such a motion without a hearing. State v. Ridenour , 12th Dist. No. CA2005-05-017, 2006-Ohio500, ¶ 14-15 (no hearing is required to determine a motion to w ithdraw a guilty plea after sentencing where the facts alleged would not require the trial court to grant the motion to withdraw the plea). {¶ 5} Second, appellant argues that the trial court erred by finding that Mr. Boyd had not established a manifest injustice. Appellant’s second a nd third assignments of error relate to the validity of the guilty plea. We find all o f these arguments are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. {¶ 6} The doctrine of res judicata bars an offender from raising an i ssue in a postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea which was or could ha ve been raised on4. appeal. State v. Straley , 159 Ohio St.3d 82, 2019-Ohio-5206, 147 N.E.3d 623, ¶ 15, citing State v. Ketterer , 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 59; State v. Harper , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-2913, ¶ 43 (“caution[ing] prosecutin g attorneys, defense counsel, and pro se defendants throughout this state th at they are now on notice that any claim that the trial court has failed to properly impo se postrelease control in the sentence must be brought on appeal from the judgment of convict ion or the sentence will be subject to res judicata.”); State v. Harris , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1022, 2020-Ohio4699, ¶ 4. The doctrine also bars filing repetitive motions to withdraw a guilty plea. State ex rel. Hughes v. Cuyahoga Cty ., 151 Ohio St.3d 45, 2017-Ohio-7780, 85 N.E.3d 723, ¶ 5. {¶ 7} In this case, appellant’s arguments could have been raised on a ppeal. The

issues could have been or were raised in his first motion to wi thdraw his guilty plea and could have been asserted on appeal from the judgment denying hi s first motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Therefore, any arguments appellant c ould have raised regarding the entry of his guilty plea are now barred under the doctrine of res judicata and his second motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been dism issed on that ground. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, but on differe nt grounds. We find appellant’s three assignments of error not well-taken. {¶ 8} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudic ial to appellant and that substantial justice has been done, the judgm ent of the Erie County5. Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pur suant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ________________________

_______ JUDGE Christine E. Mayle, J.

_______________________________ Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE CONCUR.

_______________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.