Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Parker

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

May 10, 2018

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
VINCENT PARKER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-95-320034-ZA

          FOR APPELLANT Vincent Parker

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: Anthony Thomas Miranda Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

          BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, A.J., McCormack, J., and S. Gallagher, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant Vincent Parker appeals the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas denying his "motion to withdraw void guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1." We affirm.

         Facts and Procedural History

         {¶2} A detailed examination of the lengthy procedural history of this case is set forth in this court's decision in State v. Parker, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 82687, 2004-Ohio-2976. For the purposes of the present appeal, the relevant facts are that Parker pled guilty to aggravated murder in 2003 and was sentenced to a prison term of 15 years to life. Parker appealed his conviction to this court arguing that his statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights had been violated, that the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 in accepting his guilty plea and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We rejected Parker's arguments and affirmed his conviction. Id. at ¶ 42. In 2008, Parker filed a delayed application for reconsideration and reopening arguing that his appellate counsel had been ineffective. We denied the application in State v. Parker, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 82687, 2008-Ohio-215.

         {¶3} On June 26, 2017, Parker filed a motion to withdraw void guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 and requested a hearing. Parker argued in his motion that his 2003 guilty plea was the result of a mutual mistake of law, that his plea was coerced by the trial judge's participation in the plea bargaining process, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was involuntary. The trial court denied Parker's motion without conducting a hearing and denied a related motion by Parker seeking findings of fact and conclusions of law.

         Law and Analysis

         I. Challenges to the Guilty Plea

         {¶4} In his first four assignments of error, Parker argues that 1) his plea agreement was based on a mutual mistake of law, 2) the trial judge coerced his plea by participating in the plea-bargaining process, 3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the plea stage and 4) his plea was entered in violation of Crim.R. 11. Each of these assignments of error raise arguments challenging his 2004 guilty plea that were either raised and addressed in his direct appeal or could have been raised at that time. Therefore, these claims are barred by res judicata. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 177, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967) ("a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel 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").

         {¶5} To the extent that Parker's arguments can be interpreted as reasons why the trial court erred in denying his Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we find that the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider his motion.

         {¶6} We review a trial court's decision to deny a defendant's postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Britton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98158, 2013-Ohio-99, ¶ 17, citing State v. Smith,49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph two of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.