Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery
Appeal from Common Pleas Court No. 2010-CR-851/1
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by HEATHER N. JANS, Atty. Reg. No.
0084470, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County
Prosecutor's Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery
County Courts Building, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
C. SCHAENGOLD, Atty. Reg. No. 0007144, Attorney for
DERRICK E. MAYES, Inmate No. 676-598, Defendant-Appellant-Pro
1} Defendant-appellant, Derrick E. Mayes, appeals
pro se from the trial court's decision of July 8, 2016,
overruling his motion to withdraw pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1.
Presenting three assignments of error, Mayes argues that he
should be permitted to withdraw his pleas of no contest to a
series of charges under R.C. Chapter 2907 because he entered
the pleas in reliance on the allegedly deficient advice of
his defense counsel; he also argues that the trial court
failed to notify him of the applicable sex-offender
registration requirements. We find that Mayes's
assignments of error are frivolous, and therefore, we affirm
the decision of the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
2} Mayes was arrested on June 15, 2010, and charged
with one count of gross sexual imposition. In an order
entered on January 14, 2011, the trial court appointed an
attorney to defend Mayes, and on February 17, 2011, Mayes
executed a time waiver of unlimited duration with respect to
"every offense and specification [with] which [he] could
[have] be[en] charged" as a result of the investigation
that led to his arrest.
3} The first of three indictments followed on May
27, 2011; the second on July 18, 2011; and the third on March
7, 2012. Mayes executed a second time waiver of unlimited
duration on November 23, 2011, which applied to all charges
set forth in the first and second indictments, and a third
time waiver of unlimited duration on March 16, 2012, which
applied to all charges set forth in the third indictment. All
told, the three indictments comprised 56 charges under R.C.
4} Having reached a plea agreement with the State,
Mayes appeared before the trial court on December 7, 2012,
and pleaded no contest to a total of 25 offenses, including 1
count of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles; 8 counts
of gross sexual imposition; 2 counts of importuning; 12
counts of rape; and 2 counts of unlawful sexual contact with
a minor. On December 28, 2012, the court sentenced Mayes to a
mandatory term of life for one of the counts of rape and,
running concurrently, to the maximum term for every other
5} Mayes did not take a direct appeal from his
convictions, but on August 5, 2013, he moved for
post-conviction relief, contending that he pleaded no contest
in reliance on his defense counsel's erroneous assurances
that he would be eligible for parole after 10 years and would
likely be released on parole after no more than 14 years.
Following a hearing at which Mayes and counsel testified, the
trial court found that counsel's advice did not
constitute ineffective assistance. The court accordingly
overruled Mayes's motion.
6} On February 25, 2014, Mayes appealed from the
decision overruling his motion for post-conviction relief. We
affirmed, stating that "we agree[d] [with the trial
court] that Mayes [did] not establish that [his defense
counsels performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonable representation when he assessed [Mayes's]
prospects of parole." State v. Mayes, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 26095, 2014-Ohio-4409, ¶ 8.
7} Mayes filed a motion to withdraw his pleas on
January 5, 2016. In its decision of July 8, 2016, the trial
court overruled the motion to withdraw, finding that
Mayes's "claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, " given that
he "asserted the [same] issue in his [p]etition for
[p]ost-[c]onviction [r]elief." Decision Overruling
Def.'s Mot. to Withdraw 4, July 8, 2016. Two weeks later,
Mayes timely filed his notice of appeal in the instant case.
8} On October 25, 2016, we appointed counsel to
represent Mayes. Counsel filed an Anders brief on
February 23, 2017, after which we notified Mayes that he had
60 days in which to submit a brief pro se. Mayes availed