Appellant appeals from the revocation of community control sanctions (CCS). But, instead of asserting error regarding the CCS revocation, appellant asserts that trial counsel's ineffective assistance caused his guilty plea in the underlying case to be less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. This argument is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it could have been raised on direct appeal of the conviction. Judgment affirmed.
.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Appellee : C.A. No. 2022-CA-30
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2019 CR 221
:
TYLER BLACKBURN : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
: Court)
Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on August 4, 2023
...........
JANE A. NAPIER, Attorney for Appellee
CHRIS BECK, Attorney for Appellant
.............
TUCKER, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Tyler Blackburn appeals from the trial court’s revocation
of community control sanctions (CCS) and the imposition of an eighteen-month prison
sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
-2-
{¶ 2} In October 2019, Blackburn was indicted on one count of attempted
tampering with evidence, one count of possession of cocaine, and one count of
aggravated possession of drugs. Following negotiations, he entered a guilty plea to the
charges of attempted tampering with evidence and possession of cocaine. In exchange
for his plea, the State dismissed the charge of aggravated possession of drugs. The trial
court sentenced Blackburn to three years of CCS. Blackburn did not appeal his
conviction.
{¶ 3} In November 2022, a notice of CCS violation was filed which alleged that
Blackburn had been unsuccessfully discharged from a required treatment program. The
notice also alleged that Blackburn had been convicted of failure to comply with an order
of a police officer in two separate cases in Clark County. A hearing on the violations was
conducted, and Blackburn did not contest the violations. On November 21, 2022, the
trial court revoked Blackburn’s CCS and imposed an aggregate sentence of 18 months
in prison to be served consecutively to the sentence for his convictions in Clark County.
{¶ 4} Blackburn appeals.
II. Analysis
{¶ 5} Blackburn’s sole assignment of error states as follows:
APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
-3-
{¶ 6} This appeal is from the trial court's November 2022 judgment entry revoking
Blackburn’s CCS. However, Blackburn does not raise any arguments related to that
judgment. Instead, Blackburn alleges that he was denied the effective assistance of
counsel regarding his 2019 guilty plea and conviction. Specifically, he asserts that his
trial counsel failed to properly advise him that the evidence in the underlying case “would
likely not be sufficient” to sustain a conviction for the charges of possession of cocaine
and aggravated possession of drugs. Thus, he argues that his guilty plea was not
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
{¶ 7} Since any issue related to whether Blackburn’s 2019 guilty plea was knowing,
intelligent, and voluntary could have been raised in a direct appeal, the doctrine of res
judicata bars him from now asserting this argument. State v. Ketterer,
(“Res judicata bars the assertion of claims
against a valid, final judgment of conviction that have been raised or could have been
raised on appeal.”). To advance this argument, Blackburn should have appealed from
the trial court's November 14, 2019 judgment entry, which convicted him pursuant to his
guilty plea and imposed community-control sanctions. See State v. Kloeker, 2d Dist.
Champaign No. 2020-CA-10,
2021-Ohio-2534, ¶ 14
; State v. Havens, 2d Dist.
Champaign No. 2010-CA-27,
2011-Ohio-5019, ¶ 9
(“Defendant's claim that his guilty
pleas were not entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily clearly could have been
raised on direct appeal, but was not. Accordingly, that claim is now barred by res
judicata.”).
{¶ 8} Because Blackburn’s argument is barred by res judicata, his sole assignment
-4-
of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 9} The assignment of error being overruled, the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
.............
WELBAUM, P.J. and EPLEY, J., concur.
