[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 appellee. 

 Deonta Boyd, pro se. 

* * * * * 

 PIETRYKOWSKI, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Deonta Boyd, appeals from the March 12, 2020 judgment 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 injustice 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 without a 

hearing, and finding that Mr. Boyd had not established a manifest injustice. 

 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

 The trial court prejudiced Appellant during the plea hearing when it 

did not inform him of his Constitutional right to compulsory process, 

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. Constitution 

and Article I Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution. 

 THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

 Mr. Boyd argues that his guilty plea was invalid and void because 

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 agreed to enter 

guilty pleas to reduced charges of aggravated murder, with a firearm specification, 

felonious assault, and aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced 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 for the aggravated burglary 

conviction. Appellant did not appeal the judgment of conviction 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 appeal from this decision. 

On January 27, 2020, appellant filed a second motion to withdraw his guilty plea 

asserting his plea was not intelligently, voluntarily, or knowingly 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 denied the motion on 

March 27, 2020, on the ground that appellant had not demonstrated a manifest injustice 

had occurred. 

{¶ 4} In his first assignment of error, appellant presents two arguments. He first 

argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to vacate his guilty plea 

without a hearing. We reject this argument because the trial court 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 withdraw 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 and third assignments of 

error relate to the validity of the guilty plea. We find all of these arguments are barred by 

the doctrine of res judicata. 

{¶ 6} The doctrine of res judicata bars an offender from raising an issue in a postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea which was or could have been raised on 
4.

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] prosecuting attorneys, 

defense counsel, and pro se defendants throughout this state that they are now on notice 

that any claim that the trial court has failed to properly impose postrelease control in the 

sentence must be brought on appeal from the judgment of conviction 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 appeal. The 

issues could have been or were raised in his first motion to withdraw his guilty plea and 

could have been asserted on appeal from the judgment denying his first motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea. Therefore, any arguments appellant could 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 dismissed on that ground. 

Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, but on different grounds. We find 

appellant’s three assignments of error not well-taken. 

{¶ 8} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudicial to 

appellant and that substantial justice has been done, the judgment of the Erie County 
5.

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 pursuant 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 Court of 

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported 

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: 

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.