State v. Ishmail
Decision Date | 01 July 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 80-809,80-809 |
Citation | 67 Ohio St.2d 16,21 O.O.3d 10,423 N.E.2d 1068 |
Parties | , 21 O.O.3d 10 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. ISHMAIL, Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Simon L. Leis, Jr., Pros. Atty., and Leonard Kirschner, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellant.
Robert R. Hastings, Jr., Cincinnati, for appellee.
The principal issue raised in the state's appeal is whether the Court of Appeals erred in remanding the cause for a review of the plea hearing transcript to determine whether the sentencing court complied with Crim.R. 11(C). 3 The state contends that the defendant-appellee is barred from litigating the alleged Crim.R. 11(C) violation in a post-conviction proceeding because "(m)atters involving technical violations of Crim. 11(C) may be raised on direct appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence." Therefore, according to the appellant, "(a) court of appeals commits error when it permits a defendant to raise in a post-conviction proceeding matters not affecting the constitutional validity of a plea but which violate the technical provisions of Criminal Rule 11(C) which alleged error could have been raised by way of a direct appeal."
Appellant relies on State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104, to support the position that the Crim.R. 11(C) question in this case was res judicata when the Court of Appeals ordered a remand to review the plea hearing transcript. In Perry, we stated in paragraphs eight and nine of the syllabus, respectively, that:
The alleged Crim.R. 11(C) violation in the case at bar could have been raised directly on appeal. If the sentencing court erroneously failed to inform defendant, pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C), that he was ineligible for probation because of his prior theft conviction, then the defendant should have taken a direct appeal. A Crim.R. 11(C) violation that appears on the face of the record but is never directly appealed is not per se susceptible to collateral attack by way of a post-conviction proceeding pursuant to R.C. 2953.21. Under the doctrine of res judicata the Crim.R. 11(C) question merged with the judgment of conviction and defendant cannot now relitigate the issue.
We find Perry, supra, to be dispositive on the Crim.R. 11(C) question presented herein. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in remanding the cause for a review of the plea transcript hearing.
The Court of Appeals also ordered the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether defendant's guilty plea was fraudulently induced by his former counsel. See State v. Milanovich (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 46, 325 N.E.2d 540; State v. Mishelek (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 140, 326 N.E.2d 659. Inasmuch as appellant has not challenged the Court of Appeals' order with respect to the other grounds for reversal, those issues are not properly before this court and we express no opinion thereon.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed insofar as it called for a review of the plea transcript hearing.
Judgment accordingly.
1 Defendant-appellee received concurrent sentences of five to fifteen years...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dickerson v. Warden
...claims to the state courts by operation of Ohio's doctrine of res judicata. See State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d (1982); State v. Ishmail, 67 Ohio St.2d 16 (1981); State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (claims must be raised on direct appeal, if possible, or they will be barred by the doctrin......
-
Moore v. Warden, London Corr. Inst.
...The Ohio courts have consistently enforced the rule. State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St. 3d 112, 443 N.E. 2d 169 (1982); State v. Ishmail, 67 Ohio St. 2d 16, 423 N.E. 2d 1068 (1981). Thus there is every reason to believe that if Petitioner now presented the claims which could have been raised on dire......
-
Huffman v. Brunsman
...2001). The Ohio courts have consistently enforced the rule. State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112, 443 N.E.2d 169 (1982); State v. Ishmail, 67 Ohio St.2d 16, 423 N.E.2d 1068 (1981). Therefore Grounds for Relief Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, and Nineteen sh......
-
Brakeall v. Warden Ross Corr. Inst.
...to the state courts underOhio's doctrine of res judicata. State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112, 443 N.E.2d 169 (1982); State v. Ishmail, 67 Ohio St.2d 16, 423 N.E.2d 1068 (1981); State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967). To the extent that petitioner's ineffective assistance of t......