[Cite as State v. Ford, 2019-Ohio-2991.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

DAEMON FORD : Case No. 2019CA00028 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court 

of Common Pleas, Case No. 14-CR1993A 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 23, 2019 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

ANDREA K. BOYD DAEMON FORD, PRO-SE 

150 East Gay Street #A664-328 

16th Floor Marion Correctional Institution 

Columbus, OH 43215 P.O. Box 57 

 Marion, OH 43301 
Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00028 2 

Baldwin, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Daemon Ford, appeals his April 28, 2015 sentence 

by the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio. Appellant also appeals the trial 

court's January 18, 2019 judgment entry denying his motion to withdraw his plea. PlaintiffAppellee is state of Ohio. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} On December 12, 2014, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted appellant on 

one hundred twenty-six counts involving nineteen offenses including drug trafficking (R.C. 

2925.03), drug possession (R.C. 2925.11), conspiracy (R.C. 2923.01), engaging in a 

pattern of corrupt activity (R.C. 2923.32), and having weapons while under disability (R.C. 

2923.13). 

{¶ 3} On February 27, 2015, appellant pled guilty to twelve of the counts, two 

counts of trafficking in heroin, two counts of trafficking in cocaine, two counts of 

possession of heroin, two counts of possession of cocaine, two counts of conspiracy to 

trafficking, one in heroin and one in cocaine, the corrupt activity count, and the weapons 

count. The remaining counts were dismissed. By judgment entry filed April 28, 2015, the 

trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of eight years in prison. Appellant 

did not appeal his convictions and sentence. 

{¶ 4} On November 13, 2018, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, 

claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, his guilty pleas were involuntary and 

unintelligent, and plain error in sentencing. By judgment entry filed January 18, 2019, the 

trial court denied the motion. 
Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00028 3 

{¶ 5} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for 

consideration. Assignments of error are as follows: 

{¶ 6} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN ACCEPTING A GUILTY PLEA TO 

SPECIFIC OFFENSES AND THE CONSPIRACIES OF COMMITTING THE SPECIFIC 

OFFENSES THEN SENTENCING APPELLANT FOR BOTH IN VIOLATION OF THE 

STATUTORY LAW R.C. 2923.01(G) THUS VIOLATING 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT 

OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND OHIO CONSTITUTION ART. 1 SECT. 10 

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND PROTECTION FROM DOUBLE 

JEOPARDY." 

{¶ 7} "II. EVEN ON AGREED UPON SENTENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.C. 

2953.08(D) TRIAL COURT ERRED AND LACK THE AUTHORITY TO SENTENCE 

APPELLANT ON MORE THAN ONE COUNT PURSUANT TO OHIO REVISED CODE 

2923.01 CONSPIRACY (A)(1)(F) UNDER A SINGLE COUNT INDICTMENT CASE, 

THUS VIOLATING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT AND 

OHIO CONSTITUTION ART. 1. SECT. 10." 

{¶ 8} "III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO ORDER AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON APPELLANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA 

BASED ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL THUS VIOLATING 

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF THE 5TH, 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT UNDER 

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ART. 1 SECT. 10 UNDER OHIO CONSTITUTION." 

I,II 

{¶ 9} In his first and second assignments of error, Appellant claims the trial court 

erred in accepting his guilty pleas for specific offenses and the conspiracy counts for 
Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00028 4 

committing the specific offenses and then sentencing him on each. Appellant also claims 

the trial court erred in sentencing him on more than one count of conspiracy. We hold 

that these assignments of error are barred by res judicata because Appellant failed to 

assert these errors in a direct appeal. State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 1996-Ohio337, 671 N.E.2d 233 (1996). 

{¶ 10} Assignments of Error I and II are denied. 

{¶ 11} In his third assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in failing 

to hold a hearing on his motion to withdraw. 

{¶ 12} All of appellant's claims made in his motion to withdraw could have been 

raised on direct appeal which appellant chose not to pursue. Therefore, we hold 

appellant's arguments on appeal are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. State v. Perry,

10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph nine of the syllabus ("a final 

judgment of conviction bars the convicted defendant from raising and litigating in any 

proceeding, except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due 

process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial which 

resulted in that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from that judgment"). "Ohio courts 

of appeals have applied res judicata to bar the assertion of claims in a motion to withdraw 

guilty plea that were or could have been raised at trial or on appeal." State v. Ketterer, 

126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d 9. 

{¶ 13} Even if we were to consider the merits of Appellant’s third assignment of 

error, our decision would not change. 

{¶ 14} In deciding a Crim.R. 32.1 motion, the good faith, weight, and credibility of 

a moving party's assertions are a matter for resolution by the trial court. State v. Smith,
Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00028 5 

49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264 (1977). Thus, the trial court has great discretion in assessing the 

credibility of affidavits used to support a Crim.R. 32.1 motion. State v. Roberts, 8th Dist. 

No. 93439, 2010–Ohio–1436. Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas was filed 

almost four years after his sentencing. Although not dispositive on its own, “[a]n undue 

delay between the occurrence of the alleged cause for withdrawal of a guilty plea and the 

filing of a motion under Crim.R. 32.1 is a factor adversely affecting the credibility of the 

movant and militating against the granting of the motion.” Smith, supra at paragraph three 

of the syllabus as quoted in State v. Martin, 5th Dist. Richland No. 11CA0116, 2012-Ohio4394, ¶¶ 14-15 

{¶ 15} "A trial court is not automatically required to hold a hearing on a post 

sentence motion to withdraw a plea of guilty. A hearing must only be held if the facts 

alleged by the defendant, accepted as true, would require that the defendant be allowed 

to withdraw the plea." State v. Bable, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 18-CA-32, 2019-Ohio-1209, 

¶ 33, citing State v. Kent, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 03AP722, 2004-Ohio-2129, ¶ 8. "An 

evidentiary hearing on a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is not required 

when the movant fails to submit evidentiary materials demonstrating a manifest injustice." 

State v. Robinson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27881, 2017-Ohio-272, ¶ 11. 

{¶ 16} A trial court's decision whether to hold a hearing on a motion to withdraw is 

reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Bable, supra, at ¶ 34, citing State v. 

Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977). In order to find an abuse of 

discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or 

unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 

Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). 
Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00028 6 

{¶ 17} The trial court conducted a thorough analysis of the record and concluded 

that Appellant’s allegations were belied by the record. We have held that Appellant’s 

request to withdraw his plea is barred by res judicata, but, if we were to consider the 

merits, we would hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not conducting a 

hearing because the materials submitted in support of Appellant's motion to withdraw did 

not demonstrate a manifest injustice that warranted a hearing. 

{¶ 18} Assignment of Error III is denied. 

{¶ 19} The decision of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. The 

judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed. 

By Baldwin, J. 

Hoffman, P.J. and 

Delaney, J. concur.