[Cite as State v. Artis, 2020-Ohio-4018.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LOGAN COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-19-52 

 v. 

TYRELL E. ARTIS, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-19-53 

 v. 

TYRELL E. ARTIS, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeals from Bellefontaine Municipal Court 

Trial Court Nos. 11 CRB 01721 and 11 CRB 01850 

Judgments Affirmed 

Date of Decision: August 10, 2020 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Tyrell E. Artis, Appellant 

 Crystal K. Welsh for Appellee 
Case Nos. 8-19-52, 8-19-53 

-2- 

ZIMMERMAN, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Tyrell E. Artis (“Artis”), pro se, appeals the 

November 5, 2019 judgment entries of the Bellefontaine Municipal Court denying 

his motions to withdraw his guilty pleas in case numbers 11 CRB 01721 and 11 

CRB 01850. We affirm. 

{¶2} This case stems from Artis’s 2011 convictions for domestic violence in 

case numbers 11 CRB 01721 and 11 CRB 01850, respectively, which were used to 

enhance Artis’s 2018 conviction for domestic violence. See State v. Artis, 3d Dist. 

Logan No. 8-18-40, 2019-Ohio-2070. On November 2, 2011, Artis was charged 

with domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a first-degree misdemeanor. 

(Case No. 11 CRB 01721, Doc. No. 1). On November 3, 2011, Artis appeared for 

arraignment and pled not guilty to the charge. (See Case No. 11 CRB 01721, Doc. 

Nos. 16, 17); (Dec. 5, 2011 Tr. at 2). 

{¶3} While awaiting trial in case number 11 CRB 01721, Artis was charged 

on November 21, 2011 with another domestic-violence charge in violation of R.C. 

2919.25(A), a first-degree misdemeanor, in case number 11 CRB 01850. (Case No. 

11 CRB 01850, Doc. No. 1). 

{¶4} On December 5, 2011, Artis withdrew his plea of not guilty in case 

number 11 CRB 01721 and entered guilty pleas to the domestic-violence charge in 

both cases. (Dec. 5, 2011 Tr. at 2-5). The trial court accepted Artis’s guilty pleas 
Case Nos. 8-19-52, 8-19-53 

-3- 

and found him guilty of the charges. (Case No. 11 CRB 01721, Doc. No. 25); (Case 

No. 11 CRB 01850, Doc. No. 13). That same day, the trial court sentenced Artis to 

3 days in jail in case number 11 CRB 01721 and 14 days in jail in case number 11 

CRB 01850. (Id.); (Id.). The trial court further ordered that Artis serve the terms 

consecutively for an aggregate term of 17 days. (Id.); (Id.). Importantly, Artis did 

not directly appeal either case. 

{¶5} On May 18, 2018, the Logan County Grand Jury indicted Artis on one 

count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), (D)(4), a third-degree 

felony. Artis at ¶ 2. The 2018 domestic-violence charge was elevated to a felony 

of the third degree as a result of Artis’s prior convictions in 2011. See id. at ¶ 47, 

fn. 9. 

{¶6} Artis was found guilty by a jury of the 2018 domestic-violence charge 

and sentenced on August 21, 2018 to 36 months in prison. Id. at ¶ 9-10. Artis 

directly appealed his conviction to this court and we affirmed his conviction on May 

28, 2019. Id. at ¶ 56. Importantly, Artis did not contest the use of his 2011 

domestic-violence convictions to enhance his 2018 conviction to a felony of the 

third degree in his direct appeal from his 2018 domestic-violence conviction. 

{¶7} Thereafter, on October 29, 2019, Artis filed a motion (in each case) in 

the trial court to withdraw his 2011 guilty pleas, arguing that his domestic-violence 

convictions were uncounseled. (Case No. 11 CRB 01721, Doc. No. 48); (Case No. 
Case Nos. 8-19-52, 8-19-53 

-4- 

11 CRB 01850, Doc. No. 21). On November 4, 2019, the State filed memoranda in 

opposition to Artis’s motions to withdraw his guilty pleas. (Case No. 11 CRB 

01721, Doc. No. 56); (Case No. 11 CRB 01850, Doc. No. 29). The following day, 

the trial court denied Artis’s motions to withdraw his guilty pleas. (Case No. 11 

CRB 01721, Doc. No. 61); (Case No. 11 CRB 01850, Doc. No. 34). 

{¶8} On December 2, 2019, Artis filed a notice of appeal in both cases, which 

were consolidated for purposes of appeal. (Case No. 11 CRB 01721, Doc. No. 75); 

(Case No. 11 CRB 01850, Doc. No. 41). He raises one assignment of error for our 

review. 

Assignment of Error 

The Appellant’s United States Fourteenth Amendment Right was 

violated when the Court denied his Motion to Withdraw Plea, as 

he has established that the prior plea was an uncounseled plea.

{¶9} In his assignment of error, Artis argues that the trial court erred by 

denying his motions to withdraw his guilty pleas. Specifically, Artis argues that his 

guilty pleas were not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because he 

entered the pleas without the assistance of counsel. 

Standard of Review 

{¶10} “Appellate review of the trial court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a 

guilty plea is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion.” State v. 

Streeter, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-08-52, 2009-Ohio-189, ¶ 12, citing State v. Nathan, 
Case Nos. 8-19-52, 8-19-53 

-5- 

99 Ohio App.3d 722, 725 (3d Dist.1995), citing State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 

(1977). An abuse of discretion suggests the trial court’s decision is unreasonable, 

arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 (1980). 

Analysis

{¶11} Crim.R. 32.1 provides, “A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no 

contest may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest 

injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and 

permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea.” “The party moving to withdraw 

the plea of guilty bears the burden of establishing a manifest injustice.” Streeter at 

¶ 13, citing Smith at paragraph one of the syllabus. A manifest injustice is a clear 

or openly unjust act and relates to a fundamental flaw in the plea proceedings 

resulting in a miscarriage of justice. State v. Straley, 159 Ohio St.3d 82, 2019-Ohio5206, ¶ 14. “[A] postsentence withdrawal motion is allowable only in extraordinary 

cases.” Smith at 264. “Res judicata bars the assertion of claims against a judgment 

of conviction in a motion under Crim.R. 32.1 when those claims were or could have 

been raised on direct appeal.” State v. Cagle, 9th Dist. Medina No. 19CA0058-M, 

2020-Ohio-316, ¶ 4, citing State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, 

¶ 59. See also Straley at ¶ 14. 

{¶12} Here, Artis was convicted in the trial court of domestic violence in 

case number 11 CRB 01721 and 11 CRB 01850 in 2011. Artis did not directly 
Case Nos. 8-19-52, 8-19-53 

-6- 

appeal his conviction in either case. Compare Cagle ¶ 5 (noting that Cagle did not 

file a direct appeal from his 2002 convictions”); Straley at ¶ 23 (“Straley did not 

argue on direct appeal that he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea.”). 

Instead, Artis—after his convictions were used to enhance a subsequent conviction 

nearly eight years later—filed motions to withdraw his guilty pleas in which he 

argued that his guilty pleas were not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 

because he entered the pleas without the assistance of counsel. See State v. Rock, 

11th Dist. Lake No. 2018-L-037, 2019-Ohio-1416, ¶ 18, citing State v. Dabelko, 

11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2001-T-0142, 2002-Ohio-6941, ¶ 11. 

{¶13} Artis could have challenged his guilty pleas in direct appeals. See 

Straley at ¶ 23 (“Straley could have challenged his guilty plea on direct appeal.”), 

citing State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509, paragraph one of the 

syllabus. See also State v. Gatchel, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2007-L-212, 2008-Ohio4667, ¶ 22 (“In the case at bar, appellant’s various claims that he raised in support 

of his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea were known to him at the 

time he pursued his direct appeal.”). Because Artis could have raised his arguments 

in a direct appeal, Artis’s arguments are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and 

he cannot now raise them in a post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See

Gatchel at ¶ 22 (“Because appellant could have raised them at that time, he cannot 

now raise them in a post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.”). Therefore, 
Case Nos. 8-19-52, 8-19-53 

-7- 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Artis’s motions to withdraw 

his guilty pleas. See State v. Mulkey, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29380, 2020-Ohio-3531, 

¶ 5 (concluding that “the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying 

[Mulkey’s] motion to withdraw his no-contest plea” since “Mulkey could have 

raised this argument” “that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently 

made” “in a direct appeal”); Straley at ¶ 23 (concluding that “the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in finding that res judicata barred Straley’s motion to withdraw 

his guilty plea”); Rock at ¶ 19. 

{¶14} Artis’s assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶15} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the 

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

Judgments Affirmed 

SHAW, P.J., and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur. 

/jlr