APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 2010-04-1130
RODNEY KNUCKLES, pro se, Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
MOORE, Presiding Judge.
(¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Rodney Knuckles, appeals from the January 23, 2013 judgment entry of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
(¶2} In October of 2010, Mr. Knuckles pleaded guilty to burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), a felony of the third degree. The trial court sentenced him to five years of imprisonment, suspended, with two years of community control. In April of 2012, Mr. Knuckles violated the terms of his community control, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to an additional two years of community control with all other terms of his sentence remaining in full effect. A few weeks later, Mr. Knuckles again violated the terms of his community control and pleaded guilty to the charges. In July of 2012, the trial court sentenced him to a definite period of five years of imprisonment, which is not a mandatory term, to run concurrently with a sentence imposed in another case.
(¶3} Mr. Knuckles did not appeal from the April or July judgment entries.
(¶4} On September 26, 2012, Mr. Knuckles filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea from October 2010, alleging that it was not made knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently, and created a manifest injustice. Specifically, Mr. Knuckles argued that the trial court did not inform him of the specific prison term for violating the conditions of community control.
(¶5} The trial court denied Mr. Knuckles' motion, stating:
Upon review, the [trial court] finds that [Mr. Knuckles] has not established manifest injustice in the Criminal Rule 11 plea negotiations, the guilty plea proceeding, or sentencing. [Mr. Knuckles] asserts that the [trial court] did not inform him that if he failed to comply with the terms of community control, that he would be sentenced to a definite term of prison. [Mr. Knuckles] has not provided [the trial court with] a transcript from his plea and sentencing. Upon review of the sentencing Journal Entry, the [trial court] notes that he was informed that the violation of the sentence may lead to more restrictive sanctions, up to and including a prison term of five (5) years.
Alternatively, [Mr. Knuckles'] Motion is now barred pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. The alleged error upon which [Mr. Knuckles] now relies on in support of his Motion to Withdraw was apparent on the face of the record at the time of his sentence. [Mr. Knuckles'] failure to directly appeal his conviction and sentence does not prevent the application of the doctrine of res judicata. State v. Gorospe, 9th Dist. ...