[Cite as State v. Calhoun, 2014-Ohio-2628.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

HOMELL T. CALHOUN 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 27059 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE No. CR 2011 01 0027 (A) 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: June 18, 2014 

 

MOORE, Judge. 

{¶1} Defendant, Homell Calhoun, appeals from the judgment of the Summit County 

Court of Common Pleas. We affirm. 

I. 

{¶2} In 2011, Mr. Calhoun pleaded no contest to charges pertaining to possession of 

heroin. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to nine years of incarceration, and we 

affirmed Mr. Calhoun’s conviction on appeal. State v. Calhoun, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26144, 

2012-Ohio-2374. In 2013, Mr. Calhoun filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, arguing that the 

trial judge had misinformed him of the mandatory nature of his sentence during the plea 

colloquy. 

{¶3} In a journal entry dated August 13, 2013, the trial court denied Mr. Calhoun’s 

motion because he had failed to attach evidentiary documents to his motion and because his 
2 

 

arguments were barred by res judicata. Mr. Calhoun appealed from the August 13, 2013 journal 

entry, and he now presents one assignment of error for our review. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLYING 

WITH CRIMINAL RULE 11 BY FAILING TO GIVE [MR. CALHOUN] 

NOTICE OF THE MAXIMUM PENALTIES BEFORE ACCEPTING HIS 

PLEA. 

{¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Calhoun argues that the trial court erred in 

failing to grant his motion to withdraw his pleas because: (1) the court failed to substantially 

comply with Crim.R. 11 during the plea colloquy by failing to correctly inform him of the 

mandatory nature of his sentence, and (2) his plea was not knowingly made because the trial 

court incorrectly advised him as to the availability of judicial release. 

{¶5} “In State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio 

St.2d 94, 97 (1978), the [Ohio] Supreme Court determined that a trial court loses jurisdiction 

over a case when an appeal is taken and, absent a remand, does not regain jurisdiction 

subsequent to the court of appeals’ decision.” State v. Robertson, 9th Dist. Medina No. 

12CA0094-M, 2013-Ohio-4556, ¶ 8, quoting State v. Hillman, 9th Dist. Wayne Nos. 12CA0028, 

12CA0029, 2013-Ohio-982, ¶ 7. See also State v. Phillips, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25408, 2011-

Ohio-1348. “The Ohio Supreme Court further explained that, because a motion to withdraw a 

plea is ‘inconsistent with the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s 

conviction premised upon the guilty plea,’ the trial court has no jurisdiction to consider such a 

motion after an appellate court has affirmed the conviction.” Robertson at ¶ 8, quoting Special 

Prosecutors at 97. 
3 

 

{¶6} Here, Mr. Calhoun filed a direct appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of his 

motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, and this Court affirmed his 

convictions in Calhoun, 2012-Ohio-2374. Therefore, pursuant to Special Prosecutors, the trial 

court lacked jurisdiction to consider Mr. Calhoun’s motion to withdraw his no contest plea. See 

Hillman at ¶ 7, 8. 

{¶7} Further, as we explained in State v. Knuckles, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26801, 2013-

Ohio-4173, ¶ 9: 

It is well established that res judicata prohibits the consideration of issues that 

could have been raised on direct appeal. State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 

2006-Ohio-1245, ¶ 16-17, citing State v. Hutton, 100 Ohio St.3d 176, 2003-Ohio5607, ¶ 37; State v. D’Ambrosio, 73 Ohio St.3d 141, 143 (1995). “This 

prohibition extends to claims made in support of motions to withdraw a plea.” 

State v. Molnar, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25267, 2011-Ohio-3799, ¶ 9, citing State v. 

Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, ¶ 59. 

{¶8} Here, Mr. Calhoun could have, but did not raise the issues of which he now 

complains in his direct appeal. Therefore, his argument is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 

{¶9} Accordingly, Mr. Calhoun’s assignment of error is overruled. 

III. 

{¶10} Mr. Calhoun’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit 

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 
4 

 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 CARLA MOORE 

 FOR THE COURT 

CARR, P. J. 

WHITMORE, J. 

CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

HOMELL T. CALHOUN, pro se, Appellant. 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.