.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-18-1139
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201602333
v.
Ocolar Macklin, IV DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: September 30, 2019
…
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Lauren Carpenter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
John Thebes, for appellant.
…
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Ocolar Macklin, IV, appeals from the May 31, 2018 judgment of
the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas denying appellant’s petition for postconviction
relief on res judicata grounds. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On appeal, appellant asserts a single assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING
APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR RELIEF
{¶ 3} In 2017, the trial court accepted appellant’s plea to reduced charges of
murder, with a firearm specification. Appellant was convicted and sentencing following
acceptance of his guilty plea on March 15, 2017, to serve 15 years to life in prison plus an
additional three-year mandatory prison term for the specification. The two sentences
were ordered to run consecutively. Appellant did not file a direct appeal.
{¶ 4} Appellant did file a timely postconviction relief petition on April 5, 2018,
asserting his constitutional right to a jury trial under the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions had
been infringed because at the time of his plea, he had not understood he had a right to
have his guilt proven at a trial.
{¶ 5} A trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for postconviction relief if
the petition “does not allege facts which, if proved, would entitle the prisoner to relief …
*.” State v. Perry,
(1967), paragraph two of the
syllabus. Therefore, the trial court may deny the petition if constitutional issues are
alleged that “… have already been or could have been fully litigated by the prisoner
while represented by counsel, either before his judgment of conviction or on direct appeal
from that judgment, and thus have been adjudicated against him.”
at paragraph seven
of the syllabus; see also R.C. 2953.21(D). An appellate court reviews the trial court’s
2
decision to summarily dismiss the petition under an abuse of discretion standard. State v.
Gondor,
.
{¶ 6} In this case, the trial court found that at the plea hearing, the court had
conducted a lengthy and thorough colloquy with appellant concerning the rights he was
waiving by entering a guilty plea. Furthermore, the court found appellant could have but
did not file a direct appeal where he could have raised a claim of entering an unknowing
or unintelligent plea. Therefore, the trial court denied the petition for postconviction
relief on res judicata grounds.
{¶ 7} Upon a review of the record, we find the trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it dismissed the petition on the grounds the claim was barred by the
doctrine of res judicata. The infringement of a constitutional right was a claim that could
have been raised on direct appeal. Therefore, we find appellant’s sole assignment of
error not well-taken.
{¶ 8} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudicial to
appellant and that substantial justice has been done, the judgment of the Lucas County
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal
pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
3
State v. Macklin, IV
C.A. No. L-18-1139
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, P.J.
_______________________________
Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
4
