Inmate’s due process rights unharmed by trial court’s denial of motion

Keith Arnold
Special to the Legal News

The 10th District Court of Appeals affirmed this week a trial court’s decision to deny a Chillicothe Correctional Institution inmate’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea on seven counts of robbery.

The appellate court found that the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas did not violate Mohamed Muhumed’s due process rights by its denial of the motion.

“To support his argument on appeal, appellant has attached to his merit brief a letter from his attorney, but the letter is not in the trial record and, therefore, cannot be considered in this appeal,” 10th District Judge Judith French wrote for the court, citing State v. Ishmail (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 402.

“In any event, the letter does not aid appellant’s argument, even if we could consider it. The letter establishes that the trial court did not promise any particular sentence to appellant for pleading guilty, but instead wanted to base the sentence on the pre-sentence investigation conducted after the plea.”

Muhumed was indicted on 14 counts of robbery and five counts of aggravated robbery, according to case summary. Ten of the robbery counts and all of the aggravated robbery counts contained firearm specifications.

In November 2006, Muhumed pleaded guilty to seven of the robbery counts without their accompanying specifications. He signed a guilty plea form indicating that he understood that he could possibly receive consecutive eight-year prison sentences for each count.

The trial court sentenced the man to 17 years imprisonment in December 2006, noting that prison was mandatory and that it did not approve of his participation in an early release program.

Afterward, Muhumed filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that the trial court failed to fulfill a promise it made to sentence him to 10 years imprisonment if he pleaded guilty, summary provided. The court denied the motion, stating that it “did not promise, or even suggest, anything regarding the sentence” to appellant. And the court said that until it actually issued the sentence, it “never indicated - indeed, had not even determined - what sentence would be imposed.” The court acknowledged that, at the guilty plea hearing, appellant confirmed that his plea was not induced by any promises.

Muhumed subsequently appealed.

“Lastly, appellant argues that the trial court did not satisfy Crim.R. 11 requirements because it did not inform him at the guilty plea hearing that he was ineligible for community control sanctions due to prison being mandatory for his offenses,” French continued.

“Appellant did not raise this issue in his motion to withdraw, and we need not consider it here for the first time, either. In any event, res judicata bars defendants from raising a Crim.R. 11 issue in a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea because the issue could have been raised in a direct appeal,” as in State v. Oluoch, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-45, 2007-Ohio-5560.

“In conclusion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Accordingly, we overrule his single assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.”

Fellow 10th District judges William Klatt and Lisa Sadler joined French to form the majority.

The case is cited as State v. Muhumed, 2010-Ohio-3968.

Copyright 2010, The Daily Reporter, 580 S. High St., Columbus, OH