[Cite as State v. Hagens, 2025-Ohio-4989.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2024-07-045
: - vs - OPINION AND : JUDGMENT ENTRY 11/3/2025 TYLER JAMES HAGENS, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 23CR40505
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Tyler James Hagens, pro se.
____________ OPINION
BYRNE, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Tyler Hagens, appeals the decision of the Warren County Court
of Common Pleas denying his Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to one Warren CA2024-07-045
count of rape and eight counts of pandering sexually-oriented material involving a minor.
For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the trial court's decision.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} In April 2023, the Warren County Grand Jury returned an indictment
charging Hagens with four counts of first-degree felony rape, two of which alleged Hagens
purposely compelled the minor victim to submit by force or threat of force. Hagens was
also charged with two counts of attempted rape, eight counts of pandering sexually-
oriented matter involving a minor, and single counts of gross sexual imposition and
tampering with evidence. The charges of the indictment stemmed from Hagens' sexual
conduct with a seven-year-old victim, as well as his creation of videos of the sexual
assault and the distribution of those videos via text message. Hagens pleaded not guilty
to the offenses and the matter was set for a two-day trial.
{¶ 3} On August 15, 2023, instead of going to trial, Hagens entered into a plea
agreement with the State. Pursuant to that agreement, Hagens pleaded guilty to Count 2
of the indictment, i.e., the first-degree felony rape of a child by force or threat of force, as
well as all eight counts of pandering sexually-oriented material involving a minor.1 In
exchange, the remaining charges and specifications of the indictment were dismissed.
With regards to his sentence, the parties agreed Hagens would be designated a Tier III
Child Victim Sexual Offender and jointly recommended an aggregate sentence of life in
prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years.
{¶ 4} The trial court held a hearing regarding Hagens' change of plea. After
engaging Hagens in a full Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, the trial court accepted Hagens' guilty
1.. Count 2 specifically alleged that Hagens "did engage in sexual conduct with another who was not the spouse of the offender, whose age at the time of the said sexual conduct was less than thirteen years of age, to wit: 7, whether or not the offender knew the age of the victim in violation of Ohio Revised Code 2907.02(A)(1)(b) . . . FURTHERMORE, [Hagens] purposely compelled the victim to submit by force or threat of force." -2- Warren CA2024-07-045
plea upon finding he entered the plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The trial
court proceeded to sentencing and imposed the prison term jointly recommended by
Hagens and the State. A judgment entry reflecting Hagens' convictions and sentence was
entered by the trial court the same day.
{¶ 5} Approximately five months later, Hagens appealed from the trial court's
August 15, 2023 judgment entry. The trial court appointed new counsel to represent
Hagens on appeal.
{¶ 6} A few months later, in March 2024, Hagens filed a pro se motion to withdraw
his guilty plea. The following day, the trial court issued an entry and order indicating it was
divested of jurisdiction to rule on any pending motions during the pendency of Hagens'
appeal. Based upon this lack of jurisdiction, the trial court held Hagens' motion in
abeyance until the conclusion of his direct appeal.
{¶ 7} Thereafter, Hagens' appellate counsel moved this court to voluntarily
dismiss Hagens' direct appeal. On April 15, 2024, this court granted counsel's motion and
dismissed Hagens' appeal with prejudice.
{¶ 8} On April 25, 2024, Hagens filed a second pro se motion to withdraw his
guilty plea. In his motion, Hagens argued his plea was not made knowingly, voluntarily,
or intelligently, and therefore, should be withdrawn. In support, Hagens claimed his trial
counsel was ineffective in failing to reasonably investigate voluntary intoxication as an
affirmative defense to the rape charge. Hagens also argued he was not given adequate
time to review the nature of his plea and that his convictions for pandering sexually-
oriented matter involving a minor were allied offenses of similar import, and should have
merged for sentencing. Hagens did not attach to his motion to withdraw his plea any
affidavit or other authenticated evidence to support his arguments. Thus, Hagens pointed
to no evidence outside the record that would arguably support his motion.
-3- Warren CA2024-07-045
{¶ 9} After consideration, the trial court on June 11, 2024, issued a decision and
entry denying Hagens' motion without a hearing. In its decision, the trial court found that
Hagens' arguments were barred by res judicata. Then, assuming for the sake of argument
that Hagens' motion to withdraw plea was not barred by res judicata, the court further
found that Hagens had otherwise failed to set forth sufficient operative facts to establish
substantive grounds for the relief he requested.
{¶ 10} Hagens moved the trial court to reconsider its decision, attaching two
documents. First, Hagens attached an affidavit in which he stated that he met with
recovery services while incarcerated. Second, Hagens attached a December 2022
American Addiction Centers article titled "Dangers of Mixing Xanax and Alcohol" which
discussed the side effects of Xanax use.
{¶ 11} On July 2, 2024, the trial court denied Hagens' motion to reconsider without
holding a hearing.
II. The Appeal
{¶ 12} Hagens appealed from the trial court's June 11, 2024 decision and entry
denying his motion to withdraw plea, raising three assignments of error for this court's
review. Because they are interrelated, we will discuss Hagens' assignments of error
together.
{¶ 13} Hagens' Assignment of Error No. 1 states:
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE FACTUAL OPERATIVE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE GUILTY PLEA.
{¶ 14} Hagens' Assignment of Error No. 2 states:
TRIAL COURT ERRED AND VIOLATED APPELLANT'S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, BY FAILING TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH CRIM. R. 11 AND ACCEPTED HIS PLEA AS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY.
-4- Warren CA2024-07-045
{¶ 15} Hagens' Assignment of Error No. 3 states:
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING.
{¶ 16} In each of his three assignments of error, Hagens argues the trial court
abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea without holding a
hearing.
A. Standard of Review
{¶ 17} Pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1, "[a] motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no
contest may be made only before a sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice
the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the
defendant to withdraw his or her plea." Therefore, "[a] defendant who seeks to withdraw
a guilty plea postsentence has the burden of establishing the existence of a manifest
injustice." State v. Owens, 2022-Ohio-160, ¶ 31 (12th Dist.). A manifest injustice is a
"clear or openly unjust act." State v. Straley, 2019-Ohio-5206, ¶ 14. "To prove a manifest
injustice, the defendant must show a 'fundamental flaw in the proceedings that results in
a miscarriage of justice or is inconsistent with the demands of due process.'" State v.
Tringelof, 2017-Ohio-7657, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Hobbs, 2013-Ohio-3089, ¶
9 (12th Dist.). "This sets forth an extremely high standard that is allowable only in
extraordinary cases." State v. Miller, 2017-Ohio-2801, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 18} A trial court is not required to hold a hearing on every postsentence motion
to withdraw a guilty plea. See, e.g., State v. Simon, 2015-Ohio-2989, ¶ 25, 31 (12th Dist.).
"'A defendant must establish a reasonable likelihood that a withdrawal of his plea is
necessary to correct a manifest injustice before a court must hold an evidentiary hearing
on his motion.'" Tringelof at ¶ 11, quoting State v. Williams, 2009-Ohio-6240, ¶ 14 (12th
-5- Warren CA2024-07-045
Dist.).
{¶ 19} "A trial court's decision regarding a postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty
plea is reviewed on appeal under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Rose, 2010-
Ohio-5669, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.). "An abuse of discretion 'requires a finding that the trial court
acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably.'" Evans v. Evans, 2025-Ohio-1010, ¶
9 (12th Dist.), quoting Oliver v. Oliver, 2011-Ohio-6345, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.). However, trial
courts "lack the discretion to make errors of law." Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304,
¶ 38-39. "Therefore, we review a court's errors of law de novo, with further determination
of whether that error was harmless." Id.
1. The Doctrine of Res Judicata
{¶ 20} In its decision, the trial court found that Hagens' arguments in his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea were barred by res judicata because Hagens could have raised
those arguments on direct appeal. Before addressing the merits of the arguments raised
in Hagens' appellate brief, we must address the question of res judicata.
{¶ 21} The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment of conviction bars
a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any
proceeding except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due
process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial, which
resulted in that judgment of conviction, or an appeal from the judgment. State v. Wagers,
2012-Ohio-2258, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.), citing State v. Szefcyk, 1996-Ohio-337, ¶ 9. Thus, as
this court has stated previously, res judicata applies and "bars claims raised in a Crim.R.
32.1 postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea that were raised or could have been
raised in a prior proceeding." State v. Rose, 2010-Ohio-5669, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.). In other
words, claims raised in support of a Crim.R. 32.1 postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty
plea that could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, are barred by res judicata.
-6- Warren CA2024-07-045
Miller, 2017-Ohio-2801, at ¶ 18.
{¶ 22} In some instances, competent, relevant, and material evidence presented
from outside the trial record may defeat the application of res judicata. State v. Statzer,
2018-Ohio-363, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.). However, this outside evidence "must demonstrate that
the petitioner could not have appealed the constitutional claim based upon information in
the original record" and possess some standard of cogency. State v. Daniels, 2019-Ohio-
2274, ¶ 30 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 23} As discussed above, Hagens directly appealed from the trial court's
judgment of conviction in December 2023. Although Hagens dismissed that appeal, the
doctrine of res judicata applies to issues that were raised or could have been raised in an
appeal that has been dismissed. See Eagle's View Professional Park Condominium Unit
Owners Assn. v. EVPP, L.L.C., 2015-Ohio-1929, ¶ 19, citing Marino v. Painter, 2004-
Ohio-6033, ¶ 20, 23 (11th Dist.). This is because, although a properly taken appeal may
be dismissed voluntarily by an appellant, such a dismissal is always with prejudice. Irwin
v. Lloyd, 65 Ohio St. 55, 61 (1901) (stating that there is no right to a second appeal, and
as a result, any dismissed appeal is res judicata).
{¶ 24} In his initial appellate brief, Hagens did not argue against the trial court's
application of res judicata and instead focused on the merits of his various claims.
Although Hagens later advanced such an argument regarding res judicata in his appellate
reply brief, it is well established that a reply brief is not to be used by an appellant to raise
new assignments of error or issues for consideration; it is merely an opportunity to reply
to the appellee's brief. State v. Myers, 2021-Ohio-631, ¶ 27 (12th Dist.). Due to Hagens'
failure to appropriately challenge the trial court's primary basis for denying his
postsentence motion to withdraw his plea (that is, res judicata), this court is not required
to address the res judicata argument as raised in his reply brief. Id. The trial court's finding
-7- Warren CA2024-07-045
that res judicata barred Hagens' arguments in his motion to withdraw his plea is therefore
unchallenged on appeal, and we overrule Hagens' assignments of error and affirm the
trial court's denial of Hagens' motion on the basis of res judicata. No further analysis is
necessary.
{¶ 25} Notwithstanding the above, even if Hagens had properly challenged the trial
court's application of res judicata on appeal, a review of the record reveals no reversible
error in the trial court's res judicata analysis. See State v. Froman, 2022-Ohio-2726, ¶
130 (12th Dist.). In his motion to withdraw plea, Hagens primarily argues issues and facts
related to evidence in the record, and to the extent he did so, his arguments are deemed
forfeited and are barred by res judicata because he could have raised such arguments in
the direct appeal that he voluntarily dismissed. State v. Hendrix, 2012-Ohio-5610, ¶ 11
(12th Dist.); see also EVPP, L.L.C. at ¶ 19
{¶ 26} But Hagens argues that in his motion to withdraw plea he raised and relied
on new evidence that was not previously disclosed in the record. This is not correct:
Hagens failed to properly submit any new evidence with his motion to withdraw plea. The
only new evidence Hagens submitted was attached to his motion asking the trial court to
reconsider its denial of his motion to withdraw plea. We need not consider such evidence.
See, e.g., State v. McMahon, 2010-Ohio-2055, ¶ 32, fn. 2 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 27} In sum, Hagens' arguments on appeal concerning ineffective assistance of
counsel, an alleged defect in the plea colloquy, and the alleged failure to merge allied
offenses could have been raised in Hagens' direct appeal, so those arguments are barred
by res judicata. This provides another independent reason why we overrule Hagens'
assignments of error and affirm.
{¶ 28} However, because the trial court considered Hagens' arguments in the
alternative—that is, assuming res judicata did not apply—we will do the same below.
-8- Warren CA2024-07-045
2. Hagens Failed to Establish the Existence of a Manifest Injustice
{¶ 29} Hagens contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion
to withdraw his guilty plea without holding a hearing. According to Hagens, he presented
the trial court with sufficient evidence to warrant the withdrawal of his guilty pleas,
including evidence that (1) his trial counsel was ineffective; (2) the trial court failed to
comply with Crim.R. 11 during its plea colloquy; and (3) the trial court failed to inquire into
the "clear appearance of possible 'allied offenses.'" As such, he requests this court to
remand the matter for a full evidentiary hearing on his motion. We will address each of
Hagens' arguments below.
a. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
{¶ 30} Hagens initially argues he should have been permitted to withdraw his plea
because he received ineffective assistance of counsel prior to entering his plea.
{¶ 31} This court has recognized that ineffective assistance of counsel can be a
proper basis for seeking a postsentence withdrawal of a guilty plea. State v. Simon, 2015-
Ohio-2989, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.). When the alleged error underlying a motion to withdraw a
guilty plea is ineffective assistance of counsel, the movant must show that (1) his
counsel's performance was deficient; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but
for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty. State v. Foster, 2024-Ohio-6055,
¶ 14 (12th Dist.). The failure to make an adequate showing on either prong is fatal to a
defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Leonicio, 2023-Ohio-2433,
¶ 24 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 32} "Deficient performance is defined as performance that fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness." State v. Arledge, 2019-Ohio-3147, ¶ 8 (12th Dist.),
citing State v. Jackson, 2016-Ohio-5488, ¶ 97. When determining whether counsel's
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, judicial scrutiny of
-9- Warren CA2024-07-045
counsel's performance must be highly deferential. State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136,
142 (1989). Because of the difficulties inherent in determining whether effective
assistance of counsel was rendered in any given case, a strong presumption exists that
counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable, professional assistance. Id.
{¶ 33} In this case, Hagens first argues he received ineffective assistance of
counsel because his counsel failed to reasonably investigate voluntary intoxication as an
affirmative defense to the forcible rape charges. According to Hagens, he is a long-term
user of alcohol and Xanax, and a voluntary intoxication affirmative defense would have
negated the mental state required for some of the crimes with which he was charged. In
support, Hagens identifies several side effects that can stem from using a combination of
Xanax and alcohol, including that the mixture of such substances can produce a "euphoric
effect," which can cause individuals to experience problems with "critical thinking,
problem-solving, reasoning, self-control, planning, and judgment." When taking Xanax
and alcohol, Hagens claims a person could "suffer a blackout, where one is still
responding to the environment (albeit in an impaired way) but later has no memory of the
events that occurred." Hagens also claims that the combination of drugs and alcohol can
have "dangerous side effects," including "confusion about identity, place and time;
increased [sic] in sexual ability, desire, drive, or performance; increased interest in sexual
intercourse."2 According to Hagens, he discussed this information with his counsel, who
did not pursue voluntary intoxication as a defense to the charges Hagens faced, and
instead urged Hagens to plead guilty.
2. Hagens did not attach to his motion to withdraw his plea any affidavit or other authenticated evidence to support his claims regarding the side effects of using a combination of Xanax and alcohol or his intoxication level at the time of the offense. Hagens did attach to his motion for reconsideration an affidavit stating he met with recovery services while incarcerated, as well as a December 2022 article from the American Addiction Centers titled "Dangers of Mixing Xanax and Alcohol." The article from the American Addiction Centers discusses similar side effects identified by Hagens in his motions and his brief on appeal. - 10 - Warren CA2024-07-045
{¶ 34} Even if we accept these unsworn and unsupported allegations as true,
Hagens' counsel was not deficient for failing to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense in
this case. This is the case because a voluntary intoxication argument would have been
barred by a statute, R.C. 2901.21(E), which explicitly states that "voluntary intoxication
may not be taken into consideration in determining the existence of a mental state that is
an element of a criminal offense." Instead, evidence that a person was voluntarily
intoxicated may only be admissible to show whether the person was physically capable
of performing the act with which he was charged. R.C. 2901.21(E).
{¶ 35} Since the amendment to R.C. 2901.21 to include this language in 2000,
appellate courts have been "nearly unanimous" in their view that the defense of voluntary
intoxication no longer exists in Ohio. State v. Blackburn, 2022-Ohio-988, ¶ 24 (3d Dist.)
(prior law on voluntary intoxication as a limited defense is now superseded by the new
statute), citing State v. Doll, 2017-Ohio-2894, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.); see also State v. Stockhoff,
2002-Ohio-1342, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.); State v. Koballa, 2014-Ohio-3592, ¶ 24 (8th Dist.)
("Pursuant to the amended statute, a lack of capacity to form an intent to commit a crime
due to self-induced intoxication is no longer a defense to a crime where a mental state is
an element of the crime"); State v. Hiler, 2014-Ohio-137, ¶ 41 (2d Dist.) ("voluntary
intoxication is not a defense to any crime in Ohio"); State v. Hill, 2010-Ohio-1687, ¶ 27
(10th Dist.), quoting State v. Melhado, 2003-Ohio-4763, ¶ 48 (10th Dist.) ("This court has
held that, since the General Assembly amended R.C. 2901.21 in 2000, 'voluntary
intoxication may no longer be taken into account in determining the existence of a mental
state that is an element of a criminal offense'"). Consequently, any evidence of Hagens'
voluntary intoxication may have been admissible to prove Hagens was not physically
capable of compelling the victim to submit by force or threat of force, but not for the
purpose of proving that he was unable to form the requisite intent to commit the crime.
- 11 - Warren CA2024-07-045
R.C. 2901.21(E).
{¶ 36} Hagens did not argue in his motion to withdraw his plea, or produce any
evidence to suggest, that his use of Xanax and alcohol made him physically incapable of
committing the crime of which he was charged. Instead, Hagens argues that his voluntary
use of Xanax and alcohol influenced his behavior on the date of the incident. A defense
presented on that basis would have been meritless. Consequently, and in light of R.C.
2901.21(E), counsel's failure to pursue a meritless avenue of defense was not deficient
and does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.
{¶ 37} Hagens next argues his counsel was ineffective because he did not provide
Hagens with adequate time to review the "nature of his plea," leading to a plea agreement
that was "rushed and ill advised." Hagens points out that he only had a short time to
consider the plea agreement's terms and claims his counsel misinformed him of the
elements necessary to prove Count 2, as well as the maximum sentence for that offense.
Hagens claims the facts establish his counsel was unprepared to go to trial and only
sought to make a plea deal. The record, however, reflects just the opposite.
{¶ 38} As part of his signed change-of-plea form, Hagens acknowledged that he
had been informed of the possible penalties he faced, as well as the fact that his trial
counsel had advised him of the impact of his guilty plea, and that he wished to waive and
reject certain constitutional rights. Hagens made the same specific acknowledgements to
the trial court verbally during his plea hearing. Similarly, also at his plea hearing, Hagens
explicitly acknowledged that nobody had pressured him or promised him anything to enter
a guilty plea and that he was satisfied with his trial counsel's representation.
{¶ 39} Based on the above, and contrary to Hagens' bare, unsupported assertions
to the contrary, the record is devoid of any evidence to support Hagens' claims that his
counsel was deficient in this regard. As this court has previously noted, a defendant's
- 12 - Warren CA2024-07-045
"bare unsubstantiated assertions" are insufficient to demonstrate a manifest injustice.
See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 2011-Ohio-3015, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.), citing State v. Graham,
2004-Ohio-4397, ¶ 22 (3d Dist.). Furthermore, "'an attorney's advice to take a plea deal
is not ineffective assistance of counsel.'" Miller, 2017-Ohio-2801, at ¶ 23, quoting State
v. Robinson, 2013-Ohio-5672, ¶ 23 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 40} Therefore, after a thorough review of the record, we find no evidence of a
manifest injustice stemming from Hagens' representation below. As such, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Hagens' postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty
plea based upon his trial counsel's alleged ineffective assistance.
b. Crim.R. 11 Plea Colloquy
{¶ 41} We next address Hagens' argument that the trial court failed to strictly
comply with Crim.R. 11, and that he should have been permitted to withdraw his plea on
that basis.
{¶ 42} We begin by noting that we can locate no previous decision of our court in
which we have held that failure to comply with the plea colloquy requirements of Crim.R.
11(C) may constitute a proper basis for granting withdrawal of a guilty plea under Crim.R.
32.1. The absence of such cases is unsurprising, because an argument regarding the
failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(C) may plainly be brought on direct appeal, and so is
barred by res judicata in the context of a postsentence motion to withdraw plea. However,
we will assume, without deciding, that such an argument may establish a manifest
injustice under Crim.R. 32.1 solely for purposes of analyzing Hagens' Crim.R. 11(C)
argument.
{¶ 43} '"A criminal defendant's choice to enter a plea of guilty or no contest is a
serious decision.'" State v. Johnson, 2024-Ohio-1089, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.), quoting State v.
Clark, 2008-Ohio-3748, ¶ 25. Given the seriousness of such a decision, "'[w]hen a
- 13 - Warren CA2024-07-045
defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be made knowingly, intelligently,
and voluntarily. Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea
unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution.'"
State v. Hawkins, 2023-Ohio-2915, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Engle, 1996-Ohio-
179, ¶ 7.
{¶ 44} "A trial court's obligations in accepting a defendant's plea as being
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered is dependent 'upon the level of offense to
which the defendant is pleading.'" State v. Muhire, 2023-Ohio-1181, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.),
quoting State v. Jones, 2007-Ohio-6093, ¶ 6. "Crim.R. 11(C) prescribes the procedure a
trial court must follow in felony cases before accepting a guilty or no contest plea." State
v. Martin, 2019-Ohio-2792, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.). The rule "ensures an adequate record on
review by requiring the trial court to personally inform the defendant of his rights and the
consequences of his plea and determine if the plea is understandingly and voluntarily
made." State v. Stone, 43 Ohio St.2d 163, 168 (1975). This requires the trial court to notify
the defendant of the constitutional rights set forth in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). State v. Oliver,
2021-Ohio-2543, ¶ 41 (12th Dist.). This also requires the trial court to make the necessary
determinations and give the defendant the necessary warnings set forth in Crim.R.
11(C)(2)(a) and (b). Id.
{¶ 45} Specifically, pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), (b), and (c):
(2) In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first addressing the defendant personally either in-person or by remote contemporaneous video in conformity with Crim.R. 43(A) and doing all of the following:
(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved, and, if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation
- 14 - Warren CA2024-07-045
or for the imposition of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.
(b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no contest, and that the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with judgment and sentence.
(c) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant's favor, and to require the state to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself.
{¶ 46} On appeal, Hagens asserts he did not have a true understanding of the
nature of the charges against him and, therefore, his plea was not a voluntary or intelligent
admission of his guilt. In support of his argument, Hagens highlights the following
exchange from the plea hearing:
The Court: All right. How old are you?
[Hagens]: 27
The Court: How far did you go in school?
[Hagens]: I didn't graduate.
The Court: Are you able to read and write?
[Hagens]: Yeah.
...
The Court: Did you read this over and go over it with [counsel] before you signed it?
[Hagens]: Yes, sir.
The Court: And you believe you understand what it says?
[Hagens]: I do.
{¶ 47} Based upon this testimony, Hagens contends the court failed to strictly
- 15 - Warren CA2024-07-045
comply with Crim.R. 11 because it failed to make a "complete" inquiry into his
understanding of the plea agreement's terms. According to Hagens, the trial court could
not have known the level of Hagens' understanding or comprehension of the charges
against him because it did not further investigate his education level. After our review of
the record, we disagree.
{¶ 48} Relevant here, Crim.R. 11(C)(2) provides, in part, that a trial court shall not
accept a guilty plea without first addressing the defendant personally and "[d]etermining
that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with an understanding of the nature of
the charges[.]" Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). To find the court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a),
the record must demonstrate the defendant's understanding of the charges, whether that
understanding was obtained "from the trial court itself, the prosecutor, or some other
source." State v. Goens, 2006-Ohio-4324, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.). There is no exact way to
make the determination on what someone subjectively understands, but if the defendant
receives the proper information, then we can ordinarily assume that he understands that
information. Id. at ¶ 11, citing State v. Carter, 60 Ohio St.2d 34, 38 (1979). A trial court
can find a defendant understood the nature of the charges when the totality of the
circumstances warrants such a determination. State v. Murphy, 2021-Ohio-4541, ¶ 13
(12th Dist.).
{¶ 49} In the instant case, the charges and corresponding facts were read into the
record at the plea hearing. The State noted on the record that,
[t]he Defendant is prepared to enter a guilty plea to Count 2 of the indictment, that's rape of a child under 13 by force, and Counts 8 through 15, those being pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor. ...
[I]f the case were to [sic] produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on April 8th through April 9th of 2023, in Deerfield Township, Warren County, State of Ohio, that the
- 16 - Warren CA2024-07-045
defendant engaged in sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 13, and he compelled her to submit by - - by force. That is to Count 2.
Additionally, the evidence would show that on - - as to counts 8 through 11, that on four separated instances, he created four videos of the sexual assault with - - of the child.
And as to Counts 12 through 15, that on four separate occasions, he sent those four videos by way of phone text.
This language tracks that of the indictment charging Hagens with rape and pandering
sexually-oriented matter involving a minor and reflects the charges identified on the
change of plea form signed by Hagens. This information, which was provided to Hagens
in a variety of ways, clearly sets forth the charges to which Hagens agreed to plead guilty.
As such, the totality of the circumstances establishes that Hagens received the necessary
information regarding the nature of his charges, which is indicative of his understanding
and the trial court's compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). State v. Huston, 2018-Ohio-
2818, ¶ 20-22 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 50} In addition to the above, the record further reflects that Hagens informed
the court that he had reviewed the written change of plea form, which he signed after
consulting with his attorney. A review of that form reveals the name of the charges to
which Hagens was pleading, as well as their corresponding Revised Code section
numbers, the degrees of the offenses, and the maximum prison terms. By signing the
plea form, Hagens acknowledged that he had been fully advised of and understood the
charges, in addition to the possible penalties and his constitutional rights. At the plea
hearing, Hagens confirmed he understood the contents of the change of plea form. This
court has recognized that information contained in a guilty plea form may be used to
determine if the defendant understood the nature of the charges. See State v. Irwin, 2013-
Ohio-5209, ¶ 9-10 (12th Dist.), citing State v. Johnson, 2004-Ohio-331, ¶ 16 (11th Dist.).
- 17 - Warren CA2024-07-045
{¶ 51} Lastly, we reject Hagens' argument that the trial court could not determine
that Hagens understood the nature of the charges without first determining his level of
education. It is well settled that "'Crim.R. 11 does not require the courts to determine the
defendant's individual background, reading skills, or writing skills.'" State v. Howard,
2016-Ohio-426, ¶ 15 (2d. Dist.), quoting State v. Pardon, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 1451
(10th Dist. Apr. 10, 1997); see also State v. McKee, 50 Ohio App.2d 313, 314 (9th Dist.
1976). In fact, "a person need not be able to read to enter a plea." State v. Beach, 2003-
Ohio-6546, ¶ 13 (7th Dist.). Instead, "[a] trial court has the duty to ensure a defendant
understands the plea whether or not his mental acumen is questionable." Howard at ¶ 15.
Therefore, Hagens' level of education is not determinative of his ability to understand the
nature of his charges.
{¶ 52} Based upon the record before us, it is apparent that Hagens was informed
of the charges to which he was pleading and that he understood the nature of those
charges. Hagens does not point to any evidence suggesting he was confused or did not
understand the nature of his charges. To the contrary, the record reflects that the trial
court presented the information required by Crim.R. 11 in a simple manner, to which
Hagens repeatedly responded that he understood each of the trial court's advisements.
As such, we find that the trial court fully complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) when
concluding Hagens made the plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Thus, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hagens' postsentence motion to withdraw his
guilty plea based upon the trial court's plea colloquy or its compliance with Crim.R. 11(C),
even assuming such an error could support a postsentence motion to withdraw plea.
c. Allied Offenses
{¶ 53} Next, Hagens argues the trial court had a duty under R.C. 2941.25 to inquire
and determine whether Counts 8 through 15 of the indictment—that is, the eight counts
- 18 - Warren CA2024-07-045
of pandering sexually-oriented matter involving a minor—were allied offenses of similar
import and therefore should have merged for sentencing.
{¶ 54} Like Hagens' argument regarding the trial court's compliance with Crim.R.
11(C), after a thorough review, this court cannot locate any decision finding that a trial
court's failure to merge allied offenses can constitute a manifest injustice supporting a
Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw a guilty plea. See State v. Mobley, 2018-Ohio-3880, ¶
19 (10th Dist.) (finding appellant's argument in his Crim.R. 32.1 motion regarding merger
could have been raised on direct appeal even if the issue was not raised at sentencing).
But solely for the purposes of analyzing Hagens' argument on appeal, we will assume
that a trial court's failure to merge allied offenses could be a legitimate basis to withdraw
a guilty plea.
{¶ 55} Merger of offenses is governed by R.C. 2941.25, which provides that when
charges constitute allied offenses of similar import, the defendant can only be convicted
on one charge. Specifically, that statute states:
(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one.
(B) Where the defendant's conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.
R.C. 2941.25.
{¶ 56} Stated more simply, R.C. 2941.25 provides that in determining whether
offenses must be merged for sentencing because they are "allied," courts are to consider
three separate factors: the conduct, the animus, and the import. State v. Singh, 2021-
Ohio-2158, ¶ 60 (12th Dist.), citing State v. Ruff, 2015-Ohio-995, ¶ 31. "[A] defendant may
- 19 - Warren CA2024-07-045
be convicted of multiple offenses arising out of an episode of criminal conduct if: 1) the
offenses did not have the same import, i.e. the offenses created separate, identifiable
harms; 2) the offenses were committed separately; or 3) there was a separate animus or
motivation in committing the offenses." State v. Clowers, 2019-Ohio-4629, ¶ 30 (12th
Dist.), citing Ruff at ¶ 25. The critical inquiry for an analysis under R.C. 2941.25 is the
conduct of the defendant. State v. Maloney, 2023-Ohio-2711, ¶ 58 (12th Dist.), citing Ruff
at ¶ 26.
{¶ 57} Although Hagens pleaded guilty to his offenses, "[a] defendant's plea to
multiple counts does not affect the court's duty to merge those allied counts at sentencing.
This duty is mandatory, not discretionary." State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 26. Even
if "the plea agreement is silent on the issue of allied offenses of similar import . . . the trial
court is obligated under R.C. 2941.25 to determine whether the offenses are allied, and
if they are, to convict the defendant of only one offense." State v. Welsh, 2019-Ohio-4128,
¶ 8 (12th Dist.), citing Underwood at ¶ 29.
{¶ 58} In this case, Hagens' argument concerns Counts 8 through 11 of the
indictment, which charged Hagens with pandering sexually-oriented matter involving a
minor or impaired person in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(1) and (C), and Counts 12
through 15 of the indictment, which charged Hagens with pandering sexually-oriented
matter involving a minor or impaired person in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(2) and (C).
As a part of his plea agreement, Hagens pleaded guilty to each of the above counts and
the trial court imposed a separate prison term on each count to run concurrently with the
sentence imposed on Count 2.
{¶ 59} As discussed above, the State set forth the factual basis for the charges to
which Hagens was pleading guilty. Relevant here, the State recited at the plea hearing
that,
- 20 - Warren CA2024-07-045
[a]dditionally, the evidence would show that on - - as to Counts 8 through 11, that on four separate instances, [Hagens] created four videos of the sexual assault with - - of the child. And as to Counts 12 through 15, that on four separate occasions, he sent those four videos by way of phone text.
It is undisputed that Hagens accepted the State's recitation of the facts and acknowledged
in open court that what the State had recited was true.
{¶ 60} Based on the above, the record firmly establishes that Hagens pleaded
guilty to eight counts of pandering sexually-oriented matter involving a minor or impaired
person with an understanding that the offenses occurred on eight separate occasions.
This includes four separate occasions where Hagens created videos of the sexual assault
and four other occasions where he distributed or disseminated those videos. "A defendant
who has entered a guilty plea without asserting actual innocence is presumed to
understand that he has completely admitted his guilt." State v. Griggs, 2004-Ohio-4415,
¶ 19. Thus, by entering a guilty plea, Hagens not only stated that he committed the acts
described in the indictment, but he also admitted that the pandering offenses occurred on
eight separate occasions. Based upon these facts, it is clear Hagens did not commit
Counts 8 through 15 with the same conduct. As such, the offenses simply cannot be
considered allied offenses of similar import. See State v. Lung, 2015-Ohio-3833, ¶ 11
(12th Dist.); State v. Stefanopoulos, 2012-Ohio-4220, ¶ 51 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 61} Accordingly, because the charges were not based on the same conduct,
the trial court was not required to merge the eight charges for sentencing. Consequently,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hagens' postsentence motion to
withdraw his guilty plea based upon the trial court's failure to merge allied offenses of
similar import, even assuming such an error could support a postsentence motion to
withdraw plea.
d. Arguments Raised for the First Time on Appeal
- 21 - Warren CA2024-07-045
{¶ 62} Finally, we note that Hagens has raised in his appeal to this court additional
arguments that were not raised as part of his postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty
plea. For example, while Hagens now asserts that there "may be a potential Brady
violation, where the investigating officer failed to collect and preserve critical material
evidence," Hagens never raised this issue before the trial court as part of his motion. It is
"well-settled that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised for the first time on
appeal." State v. Miller, 2011-Ohio-1310, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.). Therefore, because Hagens
failed to raise these issues in his motion below, we will not address these issues for the
first time on appeal.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 63} Considering all the above, we find that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Hagens' postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea without
conducting an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Hagens did not appeal the trial court's
finding that Hagens' arguments were barred by res judicata, and in any event the trial
court's res judicata analysis was correct. Alternatively, the record establishes Hagens
received effective representation by his trial counsel; his guilty plea was knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily entered; and his convictions were not allied offenses of similar
import. As such, the trial court did not err in concluding that Hagens failed to establish a
reasonable likelihood that a withdrawal of his plea was necessary to correct a manifest
injustice. Finding no merit to any of the arguments raised herein by Hagens, we overrule
his three assignments of error.
{¶ 64} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
- 22 - Warren CA2024-07-045
JUDGMENT ENTRY
The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Warren County Court of Common Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.
/s/ Matthew R. Byrne, Presiding Judge
/s/ Robert A. Hendrickson, Judge
/s/ Mike Powell, Judge
- 23 -