[Cite as State v. Jones, 2012-Ohio-4163.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97957
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
STANLEY JONES
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-529670
BEFORE: Cooney, J., Stewart, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 13, 2012
APPELLANT
Stanley Jones, pro se
Inmate #584-132
Mansfield Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 788
Mansfield, Ohio 44901
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Mark J. Mahoney
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor, Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Stanley Jones (“Jones”), pro se, appeals the trial
court’s denial of his second motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Finding no merit to the
appeal, we affirm.
{¶2} In October 2009, Jones was charged with two counts of aggravated murder,
one count of kidnapping, and one count of having a weapon while under disability.
Jones pled guilty to kidnapping, having a weapon while under disability, and one count of
aggravated murder. At sentencing, Jones moved to withdraw his plea. A hearing was
held, and the court denied his motion. He was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison for
aggravated murder, seven years for kidnapping, and three years for having a weapon
under disability. All three terms were ordered to run concurrently, but consecutively to
an additional three-year term for the firearm specification.
{¶3} Jones appealed, arguing that the court erred when it denied his motion to
vacate his guilty plea. State v. Jones, 8th Dist. No. 95284, 2011-Ohio-2914 (“Jones I”).
After reviewing the record, this court affirmed the trial court’s denial of his motion,
finding that Jones’s plea was entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
{¶4} In September 2011, Jones applied to this court to reopen the judgment in
Jones I. This court denied his application in State v. Jones, 8th Dist. No. 95284,
2012-Ohio-696 (“Jones II”), appeal not accepted, 132 Ohio St.3d 1424, 2012-Ohio-2729,
969 N.E.2d 271.
{¶5} In January 2012, Jones filed a second motion to withdraw his guilty plea,
arguing that his plea was not knowingly made because he was denied his right to effective
assistance of counsel. Jones and his mother attached affidavits in support of his claim.
The court denied his motion.
{¶6} Jones now appeals, raising two assignments of error.
{¶7} In his first assignment of error, Jones argues that the trial court abused its
discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In his second assignment
of error, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea without first holding a hearing on the matter. These two
assignments of error are interrelated and shall therefore, be addressed together.
{¶8} Jones’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In State v.
Hughes, 8th Dist. No. 97311, 2012-Ohio-706, ¶ 9, this court stated the following:
Res judicata bars the assertion of claims against a valid, final judgment of
conviction that have been raised or could have been raised on appeal.
State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 59,
citing State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), paragraph
nine of the syllabus. “Ohio courts of appeals have applied res judicata to
bar the assertion of claims in a motion to withdraw a guilty plea that were or
could have been raised at trial or on appeal.” Id., citing State v. McGee,
8th Dist. No. 91638, 2009-Ohio-3374, 2009 WL 1965292, ¶ 9. This court
has consistently recognized that the doctrine of res judicata bars all claims
raised in a Crim.R. 32.1 motion that were raised, or could have been raised,
in a prior proceeding, including a direct appeal. State v. Grady, 8th Dist.
No. 96523, 2011-Ohio-5503, 2011 WL 5118455, ¶ 9. In State v.
Fountain, 8th Dist. Nos. 92772 and 92874, 2010-Ohio-1202, 2010 WL
1110568, ¶ 9, this court held that “Indeed, the right to withdraw a plea is
not absolute.” * * * Thus, res judicata will apply when a defendant brings
piecemeal claims in successive motions to withdraw a guilty plea that could
have been raised on direct appeal. See, e.g., Fountain at ¶ 10.
{¶9} Jones raised the issue of the court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his plea
in his direct appeal. This court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err in
denying his motion. The issues he now raises regarding ineffective assistance of his trial
counsel could have been raised on direct appeal. Thus, the doctrine of res judicata bars
his raising again the issue regarding his guilty plea.
{¶10} Accordingly, both assignments of error are overruled.
{¶11} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common
pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded to the trial court for
execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
______________________________________________
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, JUDGE
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR