Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Lake
Criminal Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas,
Case No. 14 CR 000525.
Charles Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel,
V. Rock, Jr., pro se, (Defendant-Appellant).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.
Appellant, David V. Rock, Jr. ("Rock"), appeals
from the October 30, 2018 order of the Lake County Court of
Common Pleas, denying his motion to vacate his guilty plea
pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. For the following reasons, the
trial court's judgment is affirmed.
On March 30, 2015, the Lake County Court of Common Pleas
convicted Rock of one count of operating a vehicle under the
influence ("OVI"), a third-degree felony in
violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and an accompanying R.C.
2941.1413 specification for having been convicted of five or
more OVI offenses within the previous twenty years.
Subsequently, Rock filed several postconviction motions and
appeals. See State v. Rock, 11th Dist. Lake No.
2015-L-047, 2015-Ohio-4639 (appealing his sentence as
excessive); State v. Rock, 11th Dist. Lake No.
2016-L-011, 2016-Ohio-8516 (appealing the length of his
sentence and imposition of consecutive sentencing); State
v. Rock, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2017-L-010, 2017-Ohio-7294
(appealing denial of his motion to vacate conviction);
State v. Rock, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2016-L-118,
2017-Ohio-7955 (appealing denial of a request to modify the
transcript of the sentencing hearing); State v.
Rock, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2017-L-119, 2017-Ohio-9339
(appealing denial of a motion for reconsideration of a denied
motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1
and request for change of venue); State v. Rock,
11th Dist. Lake No. 2018-L-021, 2018-Ohio-4175 (appealing
denial of a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to
Crim.R. 32.1);and State v. Rock, 11th Dist. Lake No.
2018-L-107 (appealing jailtime credit).
On October 9, 2018, Rock filed another motion to vacate his
guilty plea as void, which the trial court denied on October
30, 2018. The basis of Rock's motion was that he was not
informed of the requirement under R.C. 5502.10 that the
department of public safety publish information related to
Rock's OVI convictions on an online public registry for
habitual OVI offenders who have had five or more OVI
convictions in the previous twenty years.
In denying the motion, the trial court held that (1) there
was no evidence presented that Rock was placed on the cited
registry; (2) even if he had been placed on the registry,
there was no requirement to inform him of his required
placement on the registry; and (3) the issue should have been
raised previously on appeal. The trial court ultimately
concluded that no manifest injustice had occurred, as
required under Crim.R. 32.1, to allow for the withdraw of a
guilty plea after sentencing has been imposed.
Rock noticed a timely appeal and raises two assignments of
error. His first assignment of error states:
"The Court failed to inform defendant of the increased
penalty set out by the GENERAL ASSEMBLY in ORC §5502.10,
thus making defendant's plea unknowing, involuntary, and
unintelligent, thus void by law."
Rock previously filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea
pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1, which was denied by the trial court
on July 19, 2017. The trial court found Rock's arguments
were barred by res judicata, and this court affirmed that
judgment. Rock's current Crim.R. 32.1 motion before the
court on appeal argues that his plea was unknowing,
involuntary, and unintelligent because he was not made aware
of the habitual OVI offender registry. Rock argues that this
additional requirement is contrary to law as a "shame
sanction," an increased penalty to his sentence, and
that had he been informed of the registry requirement, he
would have insisted on going to trial.
Crim.R. 32.1 provides that "[a] motion to withdraw a
plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before sentence
is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after
sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit
the defendant to withdraw his or her plea."
"Pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1, to withdraw a guilty plea
after the imposition of sentence, a defendant bears the
burden of proving that such a withdrawal is necessary to
correct a manifest injustice." State v. Taylor,
11th Dist. Lake No. 2002-L-005, 2003-Ohio-6670, ¶8,
citing State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977),
paragraph one of the syllabus.
Motions filed pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 are subject to the
doctrine of res judicata. State v. Gegia, 11th Dist.
Portage No. 2003-P-0026, 2004-Ohio-1441, ¶24 (citations
omitted). "Thus, 'when presented with a motion to
withdraw a guilty plea * * *, [trial courts and appellate
courts] should consider first whether the claims raised in
that motion are barred by res judicata.'"
Id., quoting State v. Reynolds, 3d Dist.
Putnam No. 12-01-11, 2002-Ohio-2823, ¶27. "Res
judicata bars claims raised in a Crim.R. 32.1 post-sentence
motion to withdraw guilty plea that were raised or could