APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. No. 05CR11-7737
Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for appellee.
Jovaugny R. Hairston, pro se.
(¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jovaugny R. Hairston, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to R.C. 2953.23 and request to withdraw his guilty plea. For the following reasons, we affirm that judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
(¶ 2} In 2005, a grand jury indicted appellant with single counts of aggravated robbery, robbery, aggravated burglary, burglary, kidnapping, theft and having a weapon while under disability, as well as multiple counts of receiving stolen property. In August 2006, appellant entered a guilty plea to counts of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, kidnapping (all which also contained firearm specifications), having a weapon while under disability, and three counts of receiving stolen property. The trial court accepted appellant's guilty plea, found him guilty, and, on September 29, 2006, sentenced him accordingly. Appellant did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
(¶ 3} In January 2009, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to R.C. 2953.23 in the trial court. He claimed that his guilty plea was not made knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily due to his trial counsel's ineffective assistance. The trial court denied appellant's petition because it was not timely filed. This court affirmed that decision. State v. Hairston, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-205, 2009-Ohio-4387.
(¶ 4} Undeterred, appellant filed another petition for postconviction relief on January 31, 2013. This petition again claimed that his guilty plea was not made knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily due to his trial counsel's ineffective assistance. He also claimed that his trial counsel forged his signature on his plea form. Appellant later amended his petition to include a claim that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied appellant's petition for a number of reasons, including that the petition was untimely and that his claims were barred by res judicata. The trial court also rejected appellant's request to withdraw his guilty plea, concluding that he failed to demonstrate a manifest injustice to support withdrawal.
II. The Appeal
(¶ 5} Appellant appeals the trial court's decision and assigns the following errors:
[1.] Trial court erred using the application of res judicata to appellant's allegations.
[2.] Trial court erred applying "the law of the case" doctrine.
[3.] Appellant's guilty plea was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel, and induced under false ...