[Cite as State v. Sutton, 2020-Ohio-3604.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

MADISON COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Appellee, 

 - vs - 

CHRISTOPHER SUTTON, 

 Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2019-08-024 

O P I N I O N 

7/6/2020 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CRI20170127 

Steven J. Pronai, Madison County Prosecuting Attorney, Rachel M. Price, 59 North Main 

Street, London, Ohio 43140, for appellee 

Christopher Sutton, #A740038, Belmont Correctional Institution, 68518 Bannock Road, 

P.O. Box 540, St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950-0540, pro se 

 S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Christopher Sutton, appeals the decision of the Madison County 

Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to vacate his conviction and set aside his guilty 

plea to one count of possession of hashish and two counts of aggravated possession of 

drugs. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the trial court's decision. 

{¶ 2} On November 13, 2017, Sutton entered into a plea agreement and pled guilty 
Madison CA2019-08-024 

 - 2 - 

to one count of possession of hashish, a third-degree felony, and two counts of aggravated 

possession of drugs, both fifth-degree felonies. After engaging Sutton in a plea colloquy, 

the trial court accepted Sutton's guilty plea upon finding it was knowingly, intelligently, and 

voluntarily entered. The trial court then proceeded to sentence Sutton to the parties' agreed 

upon 59-month prison sentence. Sutton did not appeal his conviction. 

{¶ 3} On May 8, 2018, August 6, 2018, and April 5, 2019 Sutton filed three 

successive motions requesting the trial court grant him early judicial release. The trial court 

denied each of Sutton's motions. Shortly thereafter, on July 29, 2019, Sutton filed a motion 

to vacate his conviction and set aside his guilty plea. In support of his motion, Sutton argued 

the parties' agreed upon 59-month prison sentence was void because the trial court failed 

to make the necessary consecutive sentence findings prior to issuing its sentencing 

decision. Sutton also argued that his guilty plea was void because he was "induced by an 

unfulfillable promise made by the prosecution in order to induce a plea," thereby rendering 

his guilty plea less than knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. 

{¶ 4} On August 5, 2019, the trial court issued a decision denying Sutton's motion.1 

In so holding, the trial court found "[t]he sentence imposed was agreed to by the parties on 

the record therefore findings to support the sentence are not needed." The trial court also 

found "the transcript filed by [Sutton] defeats [his] argument that promises of early release 

were represented." Sutton now appeals the trial court's decision, raising four assignments 

of error for review. For ease of discussion, Sutton's first and fourth assignments of error 

will be addressed together, as will Sutton's second and third assignments of error. 

 

1. Because "[c]ourts may recast irregular motions into whatever category necessary to identify and establish 

the criteria by which the motion should be judged," the trial court could have recast Sutton's motion as an 

untimely petition for postconviction relief. State v. Braunskill, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2018-03-006, 2018-

Ohio-3738, ¶ 16. However, regardless of whether Sutton's motion should have been recast as a petition for 

postconviction relief, or even a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1, we will assume Sutton's 

motion was timely filed for purposes of this appeal. 
Madison CA2019-08-024 

 - 3 - 

{¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1: 

{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ENTERING A JUDGMENT OF 

CONVICTION BASED ON A GUILTY PLEA THAT WAS NOT KNOWING, INTELLIGENT 

AND VOLUNTARY. 

{¶ 7} Assignment of Error No. 4: 

{¶ 8} TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN VIOLATION 

OF THE 6TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I SECTION 10, 

16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE APPLICATION OF THE PLAIN ERROR 

DOCTRINE. 

{¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, Sutton argues the trial court erred by denying 

his motion to vacate his conviction and set aside his guilty plea because his plea was not 

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. However, as noted above, Sutton did not 

appeal his conviction. Because Sutton could have raised this issue in a direct appeal, 

Sutton's claim alleging his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 

entered is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See, e.g., State v. Miller, 12th Dist. 

Clermont No. CA2016-08-057, 2017-Ohio-2801, ¶ 20 (appellant's claims alleging his guilty 

plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered were barred by the doctrine of 

res judicata where appellant did not raise the issue in a direct appeal). 

{¶ 10} So, too, is Sutton's claim in his fourth assignment of error alleging he received 

ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Id. at ¶ 21 (appellant's claims alleging he received 

ineffective assistance of counsel were also barred by the doctrine of res judicata where 

appellant could have raised the issue in a direct appeal). Therefore, because Sutton's 

claims raised herein are all barred by the doctrine of res judicata, Sutton's first and fourth 

assignments of error lack merit and are overruled. 

{¶ 11} Assignment of Error No. 2: 
Madison CA2019-08-024 

 - 4 - 

{¶ 12} THE TRIAL COURT IMPUGNED THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL 

PROCESS WHEN IT SENTENCED SUTTON TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES 

THEREBY IMPOSING A SENTENCE CONTRARY TO R.C. 2929.14(C)(D). 

{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 3: 

{¶ 14} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MR. SUTTON BY 

IMPOSING A SENTENCE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD. 

{¶ 15} In his second assignment of error, Sutton argues the trial court erred by 

denying his motion because the trial court did not make the requisite consecutive sentence 

findings prior to sentencing him to the parties' agreed upon 59-month prison sentence. 

However, despite Sutton's claims, "the Ohio Supreme Court has held that an agreed 

sentence is not subject to review for failure of a trial court to make statutory findings before 

imposing consecutive sentences." State v. Savage, 12th Dist. Madison Nos. CA2014-02-

002, CA2014-02-003, CA2014-03-006, and CA2014-03-007, 2015-Ohio-574, ¶ 34, citing

State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5, 2005-Ohio-3095, ¶ 25. 

{¶ 16} The same is true as it relates to Sutton's claim raised in his third assignment 

of error alleging the trial court's decision to sentence him to the parties' agreed upon 59-

month prison sentence was not supported by the record. See, e.g., State v. Brown, 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104095, 2017-Ohio-184, ¶ 16-20 (appellant's argument claiming the 

trial court's decision sentencing him to an agreed 11-year prison sentence was "not 

supported by the record" and was "beyond the scope of appellate review"). Therefore, 

finding no merit to any of the arguments raised herein, Sutton's second and third 

assignments of error also lack merit and are overruled. 

{¶ 17} Judgment affirmed. 

 RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.