[Cite as State v. Williams, 2017-Ohio-8022.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
CRAWFORD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 3-17-05
v.
MARCUS E. WILLIAMS, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 15-CR-0343
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: October 2, 2017
APPEARANCES:
Marcus E. Williams, Appellant
Robert J. Kidd for Appellee
Case No. 3-17-05
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Marcus Williams (“Williams”), brings this appeal
from the April 5, 2017, judgment of the Crawford County Common Pleas Court
denying his petition for post-conviction relief.
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On October 27, 2015, Williams was indicted on 24 counts of Pandering
Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(5),
all felonies of the fourth degree. On that same date another indictment was filed
against Williams alleging 56 counts of Illegal Use of a Minor in Nudity Oriented
Material or Performance in violation of R.C. 2907.323(A)(3), all felonies of the fifth
degree. The record indicates that there was a third, separate indictment pending
against Williams involving charges of Importuning, Disseminating Matter Harmful
to Juveniles and Possessing Criminal Tools.
{¶3} On April 14, 2016, Williams filed a motion to suppress and/or in limine,
seeking to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search and seizure of
his alleged property. On June 2, 2016, Williams filed a second motion to suppress
seeking to suppress statements he made during police interviews.
{¶4} On June 29, 2016, Williams entered into a written negotiated guilty plea
wherein he agreed to plead guilty to 24 counts of Pandering Sexually Oriented
Material Involving a Minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(5), all felonies of the
-2-
Case No. 3-17-05
fourth degree. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss all the remaining counts
against Williams in all cases. In addition, the parties also jointly recommended that
Williams “will be sentenced on Counts I-X to 1 year on each count to be served
consecutive to each other for a total of TEN (10) years prison and on Counts XI-
XXIV ONE (1) year on each count to be concurrent (with each other and with) * *
* Counts I-X. Defendant shall receive jail time credit.”
{¶5} After conducting a Crim.R. 11 colloquy with Williams, the trial court
accepted Williams’s guilty pleas, found Williams guilty and sentenced him to the
jointly recommended sentence. Williams did not file a direct appeal to this Court.
{¶6} On December 2, 2016, Williams filed a timely petition for post-
conviction relief arguing that the State conducted a warrantless search of his
property and that the State conducted improper, warrantless surveillance of him.
{¶7} On December 8, 2016, Williams filed an “amendment” to his post-
conviction petition, adding an argument that the State violated his right against self-
incrimination.
{¶8} On February 24, 2017, the State filed a motion for summary judgment
arguing that Williams had failed to state grounds for post-conviction relief.
{¶9} On February 27, 2017, Williams filed his own Motion for Summary
Judgment, arguing that he should be granted judgment in his favor.
-3-
Case No. 3-17-05
{¶10} On March 6, 2017, Williams filed a response to the State’s motion for
summary judgment.
{¶11} On April 5, 2017, the trial court filed its entry in the matter, ultimately
denying Williams’s petition. The trial court determined that Williams could have
filed a direct appeal of his conviction but he chose not to, and that Williams’s guilty
plea obviated his ability to argue the matters he was presenting in his post-
conviction petition. The trial court also found no ineffective assistance of counsel,
to the extent that Williams was arguing that issue. The trial court concluded that
Williams’s claims were meritless, and his petition was overruled.
{¶12} It is from this judgment that Williams appeals, asserting the following
assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error No. 1
The trial court erred in denying petition to exclude evidence
obtained through unconstitutional warrantless electronic
surveillance.
Assignment of Error No. 2
The trial court erred in denying appellant’s petition contending
that an agent of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and
Investigation (BCI) was not empowered by statute to investigate
in the circumstances present at the beginning of the investigation.
Assignment of Error No. 3
The trial court erred in denying appellant’s petition asserting that
the investigation was carried out under Ohio statutes, or
interpretations of such statutes, that violate the Constitutions of
the United States and the State of Ohio as well as Federal law.
-4-
Case No. 3-17-05
Assignment of Error No. 4
The trial court erred in denying appellant’s petition that included
an assertion stating evidence of offenses was obtained through
electronic surveillance when Ohio statutes do not include as
“designated offenses” the offenses that were being investigated.
Assignment of Error No. 5
The trial court erred in denying appellant’s petition seeking
suppression of evidence obtained by coercing him into
unknowingly surrendering his constitutional rights.
{¶13} Due to the nature of the disposition, we elect to address all of the
assignments of error together.
First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Assignments of Error
{¶14} On appeal, Williams makes a number of arguments contending that
the trial court erred by denying his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims
multiple suppression-related issues and he argues that there were multiple defects
in the investigation of him.
{¶15} At the outset, we note that Williams entered into a jointly
recommended sentence, which severely limited his rights on appeal given that the
jointly recommended sentence was imposed by the trial court pursuant to R.C.
2953.08. Notwithstanding this fact, Williams pled guilty to 24 counts of Pandering
Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor. His guilty plea affirmatively waived
any non-jurisdictional defects, particularly the many suppression and investigation-
-5-
Case No. 3-17-05
related issues that he now argues.1 State v. Moldonado, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-03-
1166, 2004-Ohio-3001, ¶ 6. This was made perfectly clear to Williams during his
Crim.R. 11 dialogue with the trial court, wherein the trial court informed Williams
that his guilty plea and the agreed sentence left him with “very limited” appellate
rights. (June 29, 2016, Tr. at 12).
{¶16} Furthermore, all of the claims made by Williams are arguments that
could have been raised on a direct appeal but were not and as such they are barred
by the doctrine of res judicata. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (“Under
the doctrine of res judicata, 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.”). Accordingly, Williams’s assignments of error are not well-taken, and
they are all overruled.
1
Williams actually had two suppression motions pending at the time he entered his guilty pleas.
-6-
Case No. 3-17-05
Conclusion
{¶17} For the foregoing reasons Williams’s assignments of error are
overruled and the judgment of the Crawford County Common Pleas Court is
affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.
/jlr
-7-