[Cite as State v. Jones, 2012-Ohio-4163.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 97957

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

STANLEY JONES

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-529670 

BEFORE: Cooney, J., Stewart, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 13, 2012 
APPELLANT

Stanley Jones, pro se 

Inmate #584-132 

Mansfield Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 788 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Mark J. Mahoney 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

8th Floor, Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Stanley Jones (“Jones”), pro se, appeals the trial 

court’s denial of his second motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Finding no merit to the 

appeal, we affirm. 

{¶2} In October 2009, Jones was charged with two counts of aggravated murder, 

one count of kidnapping, and one count of having a weapon while under disability. 

Jones pled guilty to kidnapping, having a weapon while under disability, and one count of 

aggravated murder. At sentencing, Jones moved to withdraw his plea. A hearing was 

held, and the court denied his motion. He was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison for 

aggravated murder, seven years for kidnapping, and three years for having a weapon 

under disability. All three terms were ordered to run concurrently, but consecutively to 

an additional three-year term for the firearm specification. 

{¶3} Jones appealed, arguing that the court erred when it denied his motion to 

vacate his guilty plea. State v. Jones, 8th Dist. No. 95284, 2011-Ohio-2914 (“Jones I”). 

 After reviewing the record, this court affirmed the trial court’s denial of his motion, 

finding that Jones’s plea was entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. 

{¶4} In September 2011, Jones applied to this court to reopen the judgment in 

Jones I. This court denied his application in State v. Jones, 8th Dist. No. 95284, 

2012-Ohio-696 (“Jones II”), appeal not accepted, 132 Ohio St.3d 1424, 2012-Ohio-2729, 

969 N.E.2d 271. 
{¶5} In January 2012, Jones filed a second motion to withdraw his guilty plea, 

arguing that his plea was not knowingly made because he was denied his right to effective 

assistance of counsel. Jones and his mother attached affidavits in support of his claim. 

The court denied his motion. 

{¶6} Jones now appeals, raising two assignments of error. 

{¶7} In his first assignment of error, Jones argues that the trial court abused its 

discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In his second assignment 

of error, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea without first holding a hearing on the matter. These two 

assignments of error are interrelated and shall therefore, be addressed together. 

{¶8} Jones’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In State v. 

Hughes, 8th Dist. No. 97311, 2012-Ohio-706, ¶ 9, this court stated the following: 

Res judicata bars the assertion of claims against a valid, final judgment of 

conviction that have been raised or could have been raised on appeal. 

State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 59, 

citing State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph 

nine of the syllabus. “Ohio courts of appeals have applied res judicata to 

bar the assertion of claims in a motion to withdraw a guilty plea that were or 

could have been raised at trial or on appeal.” Id., citing State v. McGee, 

8th Dist. No. 91638, 2009-Ohio-3374, 2009 WL 1965292, ¶ 9. This court 

has consistently recognized that the doctrine of res judicata bars all claims 

raised in a Crim.R. 32.1 motion that were raised, or could have been raised, 

in a prior proceeding, including a direct appeal. State v. Grady, 8th Dist. 

No. 96523, 2011-Ohio-5503, 2011 WL 5118455, ¶ 9. In State v. 

Fountain, 8th Dist. Nos. 92772 and 92874, 2010-Ohio-1202, 2010 WL 

1110568, ¶ 9, this court held that “Indeed, the right to withdraw a plea is 

not absolute.” * * * Thus, res judicata will apply when a defendant brings 

piecemeal claims in successive motions to withdraw a guilty plea that could 

have been raised on direct appeal. See, e.g., Fountain at ¶ 10. 
{¶9} Jones raised the issue of the court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his plea 

in his direct appeal. This court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err in 

denying his motion. The issues he now raises regarding ineffective assistance of his trial 

counsel could have been raised on direct appeal. Thus, the doctrine of res judicata bars 

his raising again the issue regarding his guilty plea. 

{¶10} Accordingly, both assignments of error are overruled. 

{¶11} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded to the trial court for 

execution of sentence. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

______________________________________________ 

COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, JUDGE 

MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR