State v. Blackburn

2023 Ohio 2697

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 4, 2023
• Docket: 2022-CA-30
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Blackburn, 2023-Ohio-2697.]

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, 126 Ohio St.3d

448, 2010-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 59 (“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.