Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas Case No. CR-95-320034-ZA
APPELLANT Vincent Parker
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor BY: Anthony Thomas Miranda Assistant
BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, A.J., McCormack, J., and S.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
A. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.
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.
and Procedural History
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.
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.
Challenges to the Guilty Plea
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
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.
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 ...