[Cite as State v. Strodes, 2011-Ohio-1828.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF CLARK COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO : 

Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 10CA0051 

vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 94CR0713 

KEVIN T. STRODES : (Criminal Appeal from 

 Common Pleas Court) 

Defendant-Appellant : 

 . . . . . . . . . 

 O P I N I O N

 Rendered on the 15th day of April, 2011. 

 . . . . . . . . . 

Andrew D. Wilson, Pros. Attorney; Atty, Reg. No. 0073767; Andrew 

R. Picek, Asst. Pros. Attorney, Atty. Reg. No.0082121, P.O. Box 

1608, 50 E. Columbia Street, Springfield, OH 45501 

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee 

George A. Katchmer, Atty. Reg. No.0005031, 115 Brookside Drive, 

Yellow Springs, OH 45387 

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

 . . . . . . . . . 

GRADY, P.J.: 

{¶ 1} Defendant, Kevin Strodes, appeals from the trial court’s 

denial of his Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea to 

the offense of murder, R.C. 2903.02(B). 

{¶ 2} Following his indictment on multiple charges, Strodes 

entered a negotiated guilty plea to the offense of murder on May 
2

2, 2005. The State dismissed the other charges. Sentencing was 

scheduled for May 13, 2005. 

{¶ 3} At the sentencing hearing, before his sentence was 

imposed, Strodes moved pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 to withdraw his 

guilty plea. The trial court heard evidence on the motion, which 

included evidence that Strodes is afflicted with Attention Deficit 

and Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) and as a result didn’t 

understand the plea proceedings. The trial court denied Strodes’ 

motion to withdraw. The court entered its judgment of conviction 

on May 16, 2005, sentencing Strodes to serve a term of incarceration 

of from fifteen years to life. 

{¶ 4} Strodes filed a notice of appeal from his conviction. 

 He argued that the trial court erred when it denied his motion 

to withdraw, because his ADHD condition prevented him from entering 

a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty plea. After 

reviewing the record, we found that the record of the hearing on 

his motion to withdraw refutes Strodes’ contention that he didn’t 

understand what was going on when he entered his guilty plea. 

State v. Strodes, Clark App. No. 05CA0070, 2006-Ohio-2335, ¶11. 

 We therefore overruled the error Strodes assigned and affirmed 

his conviction. Id. 

{¶ 5} On March 18, 2010, Strodes filed a second Crim.R. 32.1 

motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The motion was predicated 
3

on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Strodes argued 

that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to review his 

medical records, which would have informed counsel that Strodes 

had not used medications necessary to manage his ADHD condition 

before he entered his guilty plea. Had counsel done that, 

according to Strodes, his counsel would have better been able to 

explain the plea proceedings to Strodes and better able to inform 

the court about Strodes’ ADHD condition and its effect. 

{¶ 6} The trial court denied Strodes’ Crim.R. 32.1 condition, 

without a hearing on April 14, 2010. Strodes filed a notice of 

appeal from that order. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶ 7} “THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE APPELLANT A HEARING IN 

THIS MATTER.” 

{¶ 8} Counsel's performance will not be deemed ineffective 

unless and until counsel's performance is proved to have fallen 

below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in 

addition, prejudice arose from counsel's performance. 

Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 

80 L.Ed.2d 674. To show that a defendant has been prejudiced by 

counsel’s deficient performance, the defendant must affirmatively 

demonstrate to a reasonable probability that were it not for 

counsel’s errors, the result of the trial would have been different. 
4

Id., State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136. 

{¶ 9} Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] point or a fact 

which was actually and directly in issue in a former action and 

was there passed upon and determined by a court of competent 

jurisdiction may not be drawn in question in any future action 

between the same parties or their privies, whether the cause of 

action in the two actions be identical or different.” Norwood 

v. McDonald (1943), 142 Ohio St.299, paragraph three of the Syllabus 

by the Court. 

{¶ 10} In the prior appeal, we found that Strodes’ ADHD 

condition did not prevent him from entering a knowing, intelligent, 

and voluntary guilty plea. Our finding concerning that fact 

precludes a showing that Strodes was prejudiced by his counsel’s 

alleged failure to obtain and review Strodes’ medical records 

concerning his ADHD condition. Absent a showing that the outcome 

of the proceeding in which the defective performance by counsel 

took place would have been different, but for the defect alleged, 

a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not shown. 

Strickland; Bradley. 

{¶ 11} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of 

the trial court will be affirmed. 
5

DONOVAN, J. And HALL, J., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

Andrew R. Picek, Esq. 

George A. Katchmer, Esq. 

Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter