[Cite as State v. Taylor, 2012-Ohio-2070.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97690
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
EDWARD TAYLOR
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-502904
BEFORE: Keough, J., Jones, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 10, 2012
FOR APPELLANT
Edward Taylor, pro se
Inmate No. 570-134
P.O. Box #788
Mansfield, OH 44901
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Kristen L. Sobieski
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Edward Taylor, appeals the trial court’s decision
denying his motion to “void his plea contract.” For the reasons that follow, we affirm the
decision of the trial court.
{¶2} In 2009, appellant pled guilty to aggravated murder and attempted murder
and received a life sentence with parole eligibility after 30 years. In his direct appeal,
Taylor challenged his plea and contended that postrelease control was erroneously
imposed because he pled guilty to a nonclassified felony. See State v. Taylor, 8th Dist.
No. 94569, 2010-Ohio-5607, appeal not allowed, 128 Ohio St.3d 1462, 2011-Ohio-1829,
945 N.E.2d 524 (“Taylor I”). This court affirmed his plea, but remanded the case to the
trial court for the deletion of postrelease control that was erroneously imposed as part of
appellant’s sentence. Id. On December 1, 2010, the trial court complied with the order
from this court by deleting the reference to postrelease control in Taylor’s sentence.
{¶3} In September 2011, appellant moved the trial court for “specific performance
[or] rescission to avoid plea agreement and to set aside the agreement” on the grounds
that the imposition of postrelease control voided the plea contract with the State. The
trial court denied appellant’s motion, and appellant now appeals.
{¶4} Appellant’s assignment of error states: “The trial court abuses its discretion
in denying a defendant’s motion to rescind a void contract when there is a hard and fast
rule in place that plea agreements are contractual in nature and thus subject to contract
law.”
{¶5} In this appeal, Taylor attempts to challenge his plea based on contract law.
In his motion filed with the trial court, he argued that rescission of his plea agreement is
proper because the error made by the trial court in imposing postrelease control voided
the entire plea agreement.
{¶6} We find that the motion Taylor filed with the trial court is an attempt to
withdraw his plea, postconviction. Absent an abuse of discretion, an appellate court will
not reverse a trial court’s decision denying a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty
plea. State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977). A post-sentence
withdrawal of a plea is permitted “to correct manifest injustice.” Crim.R. 32.1. A
defendant who seeks to withdraw a plea of guilty after the imposition of sentence has the
burden of establishing the existence of manifest injustice. Smith at paragraph one of the
syllabus. In this case Taylor has not demonstrated that manifest injustice occurred in
removing the period of postrelease control from his sentence; thus, his argument must
fail.
{¶7} Furthermore, the arguments raised herein were presented by Taylor and
rejected by this court in his direct appeal. In Taylor I, appellant argued as an assigned
error that his plea was invalid because the trial court erroneously informed him that he
would be subject to postrelease control. Taylor, 8th Dist. No. 94569, 2010-Ohio-5607, ¶
6. This court, in upholding his plea but remanding for deletion of postrelease control
from appellant’s sentence, stated:
Although Taylor is correct in arguing that he is not subject to
postrelease control, see State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239,
2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d 462, at ¶ 36, and that the court violated
Crim.R. 11, the error was nonprejudicial. In State v. Anderson, 8th Dist.
No. 92576, 2010-Ohio-2085, we considered the same argument on similar
facts and found that Anderson failed to show that he suffered any prejudice
from misinformation in a plea colloquy relating to postrelease control for a
nonclassified felony because there was no indication that he would have
pleaded differently had he been informed correctly. Id. at ¶ 29-30.
Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any case in which a defendant, wrongfully
advised of the possibility of postrelease control, could colorably argue that
he would not have pleaded guilty if postrelease control was not a part of the
sentence. Offenders tend to object to the imposition of postrelease control;
they do not seek it out. Taylor was not only fully advised as to his
sentence, he agreed to it. He shows no prejudice from the court’s error.
We do find, however, that the reference to postrelease control should
be deleted from the court’s sentencing entry, so we remand
for the limited purpose of allowing the court to correct the
sentencing entry. Id. at 29. The assigned errors are
overruled. Id. at ¶ 7-8.
{¶8} Accordingly, the assigned error raised by Taylor is barred by res judicata,
which precludes the further litigation in a criminal case of issues that were raised
previously in a direct appeal. State v. Leek, 8th Dist. No. 74338 (June 21, 2000), citing
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 180, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967). Appellant’s assignment
of error is overruled.
{¶9} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from 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. The defendant’s conviction having
been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. 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.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR