Court Opinion

ID: 9907284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 00:07:11.090792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:15.521388
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Burton, 2023-Ohio-4370.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                   CASE NO. 2023-P-0010

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                 Criminal Appeal from the
        - vs -                                   Court of Common Pleas

JERRY T. BURTON,
                                                 Trial Court No. 2019 CR 00704
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                             OPINION

                                     Decided: December 4, 2023
                                         Judgment: Affirmed

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder, Assistant
Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Sean P. Martin, P.O. Box 716, Willoughby, OH 44096 (For Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

        {¶1}     Defendant-appellant, Jerry T. Burton, appeals the denial of his post-

sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. For the following reasons, we affirm the

judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas.

        {¶2}     On July 31, 2019, the Portage County Grand Jury issued a three-count

indictment charging appellant with failure to comply with order or signal of a police officer,

a third degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2921.331 (Count One), receiving stolen property,

a fourth degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2913.51 (Count Two), and driving under

suspension, a first degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 4510.11 (Count Three).
       {¶3}   As to Count One, the indictment states that on or about June 5, 2019,

appellant “did operate a motor vehicle * * * so as willfully to elude or flee a police officer

after receiving a visible or audible signal from a police officer to bring his motor vehicle to

a stop; and the operation of the motor vehicle by the said Jerry T. Burton caused a

substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property” in Portage County, Ohio.

       {¶4}   The indictment as to Count Two provides that on or about June 5, 2019,

appellant “did receive, retain or dispose of certain property, being a 2017 Hyundai Elantra,

VIN#5NPD74LF9HH112783, the property of another, one Anna M. Langham, * * * Burton

knowing or having reasonable cause to believe said property had been obtained through

the commission of a theft offense, and the property involved is a motor vehicle * * * ” in

Portage County, Ohio.

       {¶5}   Finally, as to Count Three, the indictment states on or about June 5, 2019,

appellant did “operate any motor vehicle upon the public highway within the State of Ohio,

when [his] driver’s license or commercial driver’s license or permit or other nonresident

driving privileges has been suspended under any provision of the Revised Code * * * or

under an applicable law in any other jurisdiction in which the person’s license or permit

was issued during the period of suspension” in Portage County, Ohio.

       {¶6}   Appellant initially entered a plea of not guilty at arraignment.

       {¶7}   On February 12, 2020, a plea hearing was held and a written plea of guilty

was executed by appellant. According to the written plea agreement, appellant entered

a plea of guilty to Counts One and Two of the indictment. In exchange for his plea, the

State dismissed the remaining count, Count Three. The agreement, signed by appellant,

                                              2

Case No. 2023-P-0010
detailed the constitutional rights he waived because of his plea and included a description

of his appellate rights. A PSI was ordered.

       {¶8}   The trial court sentenced appellant on June 22, 2020, to 12 months of

intensive supervised probation and 48 months of basic probation. He was ordered to

complete Thinking for a Change, to continue counseling through Signature Health, and

to take prescribed medication. The court imposed a $300.00 fine and suspended

appellant’s driver’s license for seven years. Appellant did not appeal this entry.

       {¶9}   On November 10, 2020, a motion to revoke/extend probation was filed

which alleged that appellant “pled guilty in Lake County Common Pleas Court to Failure

to Comply with Order or Signal of Police (F-3); Weapons Under Disability (F-3), and

Criminal Damaging or Endangering (M-2).”

       {¶10} Appellant appeared before the trial court on a probation violation on January

22, 2021. The assistant prosecuting attorney informed the court below that appellant was

sentenced to a five-year sentence on an unrelated conviction in Lake County, Ohio.

Appellant admitted the violation. The trial court concluded that “more restrictive sanctions

are necessary” and terminated appellant’s probation. The trial court sentenced him to 24

months on Count One and 12 months on Count Two and ordered the sentences to be

served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the five-year sentence imposed by

Lake County in the separate and unrelated case. Appellant did not appeal this entry.

       {¶11} On January 17, 2023, appellant filed a pro se motion requesting judicial

release. The trial court denied that motion.

                                               3

Case No. 2023-P-0010
       {¶12} On February 22, 2023, appellant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty

plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. Two days later, the trial court denied his motion without

hearing. Appellant now appeals.

       {¶13} On appeal, appellant raises the following three assignments of error:

       [1.] “The trial court abused their discretion by denying appellant’s Motion to
       Withdraw Plea.”

       [2.] “Trial counsel committed ineffective assistance of counsel of by failing to raise
       a Double Jeopardy defense.”

       [3.] “The Appellant’s conviction in Portage County violated the Double Jeopardy
       Clause.”

These assignments of errors as presented will be considered jointly.

       {¶14} A criminal defendant’s plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily. “Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea

unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution.”

State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). Crim.R. 11 was enacted

and adopted “to ensure compliance with the constitutional mandates.” State v. McDaniel,

11th Dist. Portage No. 2017-P-0098, 2020-Ohio-7003, ¶ 11. There is a presumption that

a plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered when a trial court complies

with Crim.R. 11. State v. Haines, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A-0106, 2013-Ohio-3016,

¶ 8.

       {¶15} “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.”

Crim.R. 32.1.

                                             4

Case No. 2023-P-0010
       {¶16} This Court noted in State v. Haines, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A-0106,

2023-Ohio-3016, ¶ 11:

              “Ohio courts have held that ‘manifest injustice relates to some
              fundamental flaw in the proceedings which result[s] in a
              miscarriage of justice or is inconsistent with the demands of
              due process.’” (Citation omitted.) State v. Bradford, 8th Dist.
              Cuyahoga Nos. 110907 et al., 2022-Ohio-1503, ¶ 12; State v.
              Jones, 4th Dist. Gallia No. 19CA9, 2020-Ohio-7037, ¶ 21 (“[a]
              trial court violates a defendant's due process rights, and
              hence may produce a manifest injustice, if it accepts a guilty
              plea that the defendant did not enter knowingly, intelligently,
              and voluntarily”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, “[i]f a
              defendant shows that he or she did not enter a plea knowingly,
              intelligently or voluntarily, the defendant may establish a
              manifest injustice sufficient to warrant withdrawal of the guilty
              plea under Crim.R. 32.1.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Artuso,
              11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A-0009, 2022-Ohio-3283, ¶ 21;
              see also State v. Garcia, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A-
              0066, 2023-Ohio-2446, ¶ 13.”

       {¶17} We review a trial court’s decision regarding a motion to withdraw a plea

under an abuse-of-discretion standard. State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490, 2004-Ohio-

6894, 820 N.E.2d 355, ¶ 32; State v. Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468, 2019-Ohio-1839, 129

N.E.3d 404, ¶ 13.

       {¶18} Appellant asserts that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea on the

grounds that his conviction in Portage County violates the double jeopardy clause, and

that his trial counsel was ineffective for refusing to raise the claim in the trial court at the

time of his plea in February 2020. Appellant’s claims are procedurally barred.

       {¶19} “Motions filed pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 are subject to the doctrine of res

judicata.” State v. Rock, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2018-L-021, 2018-Ohio-4175, ¶ 9, citing

State v. Gegia, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2003-P-0026, 2004-Ohio-1441, ¶ 24. “‘Thus, “when

presented with a motion to withdraw a guilty plea * * *, [trial courts and appellate courts]

                                               5

Case No. 2023-P-0010
should consider first whether the claims raised in that motion are barred by res judicata.”’

[Gegia], quoting State v. Reynolds, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-01-11, 2002-Ohio-2823, ¶

27.” Rock, at ¶ 9. “If the claim is not barred by res judicata, courts can then apply the

manifest injustice standard in accordance with Crim.R. 32.1.” Id., citing Reynolds, supra,

at ¶ 27.

       {¶20} The doctrine of res judicata operates to prevent relitigation of issues that

were already decided by a court and litigation of matters that should have been brought

in a previous action. Rock at ¶ 10, citing State v. McDonald, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2003-L-

155, 2004-Ohio-6332, ¶ 21. As such, res judicata will bar claims raised in a post-

sentencing motion to withdraw guilty plea that could have been raised in a prior

proceeding. Id.

       {¶21} Upon review, we conclude that res judicata bars appellant’s claims. Notably,

appellant filed his motion to withdraw his guilty plea on February 22, 2023, thirty-two (32)

months after he was originally sentenced and twenty-five (25) months after the trial court

revoked his community control sanctions. Appellant alleged below that he spoke with trial

counsel at the time of his plea about a possible double jeopardy claim. According to the

appellant, his trial counsel refused to raise the issue to the lower court. Despite the

opportunity to do so, Appellant also did not inform the trial court of any concerns when

addressed by the trial court at the plea hearing or at his sentencing hearing.

       {¶22} Further, appellant did not file a direct appeal from the entry on sentence.

Appellant could have raised both the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and double

jeopardy claims in a direct appeal of his conviction. He failed to do so, thus, res judicata

                                             6

Case No. 2023-P-0010
bars him from raising them now. State v. Curry, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2014-A-0056,

2015-Ohio-1768, ¶ 8.

      {¶23} Since appellant’s claims are res judicata barred, this Court need not review

for manifest injustice. Rock at ¶ 9. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not

abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his plea.

      {¶24} Based on the opinion of this court, none of appellant’s assignments of error

have merit and the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

                                            7

Case No. 2023-P-0010