State v. Wooten, Unpublished Decision (9-20-2002)
This text of State v. Wooten, Unpublished Decision (9-20-2002) (State v. Wooten, Unpublished Decision (9-20-2002)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} Appellant did not timely file a direct appeal, but on July 16, 2001, sought leave of this court to institute a delayed appeal. We denied leave. State v. Wooten (Aug. 2, 2001), Lucas App. No. L-01-1322. On August 20, 2001, appellant petitioned the trial court for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court rejected appellant's petition, finding alternatively that 1) it was untimely, 2) the doctrine of res judicata was applicable to appellant's claims, or 3) appellant's affidavit of information outside the record is self-serving and lacks credibility.
{¶ 3} Appellant now appeals this judgment, asserting 1) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and 2) a "multiplicity of plain errors" denied him justice.
{¶ 4} Pursuant to 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 12(C), we sua sponte transfer this matter to our accelerated docket and, hereby, render our decision.
{¶ 5} The trial court's determination that appellant's petition was untimely was erroneous. R.C.
{¶ 6} Nevertheless, the doctrine of res judicata bars a convicted defendant from raising any defense or claim which was or could have been raised at a trial or on appeal, State v. Perry (1967),
{¶ 7} In this matter, appellant attempted to raise a multitude of evidentiary and procedural complaints which are either irrelevant because of his guilty plea, see State v. Maples (Mar. 11, 1994), Lucas App. No. L-93-009, or could have been raised on direct appeal.
{¶ 8} Appellant's only allegation which has facial standing is his charge that his trial counsel coerced his guilty plea. However, the only documentation appellant submits on this issue is his own unsupported affidavit, the contents of which are refuted by appellant's own responses in the Crim.R. 11 colloquy. Such
{¶ 9} self-serving testimony may be properly discredited.State v. Calhoun (1999),
{¶ 10} Consequently, the trial court properly concluded that the issues appellant raised were barred by res judicata or lacked sufficient credible support. Accordingly, both of appellant's assignment of error are not well-taken.
{¶ 11} Upon consideration whereof, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
James R. Sherck, J., Richard W. Knepper, J., and Mark L. Pietrykowski,P.J., CONCUR.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Wooten, Unpublished Decision (9-20-2002), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wooten-unpublished-decision-9-20-2002-ohioctapp-2002.