State v. Darling

Citations

• 2021 Ohio 440

Syllabus

Motion to withdraw guilty pleas Crim.R. 32.1 manifest injustice evidentiary hearing jurisdiction convictions affirmed res judicata unsubstantiated assertions. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's postconviction motion to withdraw his guilty pleas under Crim.R. 32.1 because it had no jurisdiction to consider defendant's motion after appellate court affirmed defendant's convictions. Even if trial court had jurisdiction to consider defendant's motion, consideration of his claims would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata because defendant raised, or could have raised, any claims related to the ineffectiveness of his defense counsel and the unknowing, unintelligent and involuntary nature of his guilty pleas in his direct appeal or his prior petition for postconviction relief. Further, defendant's conclusory allegations and assertions, unsupported by affidavits or other relevant evidentiary materials, were insufficient to demonstrate a manifest injustice or to warrant a hearing on his motion.