COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 68035 STATE OF OHIO : : : PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : KAVIN PEEPLES : OPINION : : DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 20, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court, No. CR-217688. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Esq. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: Kavin Peeples, pro se No. 199-353 Mansfield Correctional Institution P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, OH 44901 -2- DAVID T. MATIA, J.: Kavin Lee Peeples, defendant-appellant, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R 32.1. Appellant raises two assignments of error. This court, finding no error, affirms the decision of the trial court. STATEMENT OF FACTS On June 8, 1987, Kavin Lee Peeples, defendant-appellant, was indicted for the attempted murder of Valerie Bennett in violation of R.C. 2903.02 and 2923.02. Defendant-appellant attempted to strangle the victim with a child's jump rope. The victim suffered irreparable brain damage and is confined to a wheelchair. Defendant-appellant initially pled not guilty. During the voir dire of the case, the State's witness, Kavin Lee Peeples, defendant-appellant, sought leave of the court to change his plea to guilty. On September 16, 1987, a hearing was held and the trial court accepted appellant's guilty plea. Defendant- appellant was sentenced to 8 to 25 years imprisonment. Defendant- appellant appealed to this court alleging the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 requirements and that the court failed to inquire into his competency and the psychological causes of the acts forming the basis of the underlying offense. On January 3, 1989, we affirmed the trial court. On June 12, 1989, Kavin Lee Peeples, defendant-appellant, filed a petition for post-conviction relief with the trial court based upon the trial court's failure to inform him of affirmative defense of "complete and voluntary renunciation" to the attempt charge. -3- The petition was denied. Defendant-appellant filed a second petition for post-conviction relief based upon ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. This petition was denied. Defendant-appellant again filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. On January 29, 1990, this petition was denied. On March 5, 1991, Kavin Lee Peeples, defendant-appellant, was brought before the sentencing court for resentencing as to correct an error. At the time defendant-appellant was initially sentenced, the minimum term of incarceration was 4 to 7 years instead of 8 years as believed by the trial court. Defendant-appellant made an oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea again based on the trial court's failure to advise him of an affirmative defense and therefore, his plea of guilty was not knowingly and intelligently made. The court denied his motion. Defendant-appellant's appeal to this court on the matter was denied on December 31, 1992. An appeal from that decision is now pending in the Ohio Supreme Court. On September 13, 1994, Kavin Lee Peeples, defendant-appellant, filed a motion with the trial court to withdraw his plea of guilty pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. On September 26, 1994, the trial court overruled his motion for failure to "cite any reason why his plea should be permitted to be withdrawn." Kavin Lee Peeples, defendant-appellant, now appeals the trial court's decision. -4- I. FIRST AND SECOND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Since Kavin Lee Peeples', defendant-appellant's, first and second assignments of error contain similar issues of law and fact, they will be considered concurrently. I. IT IS MANIFEST INJUSTICE TO DENY THE WITHDRAWAL OF A GUILTY PLEA MOTION UNDER CRIM.R. 32.1, WHERE THE DEFENDANT PLEADING GUILTY TO A [SIC] OFFENSE WHICH CONTAINED A STATUTORY AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IS DENIED THE RIGHT TO SUCH DEFENSE BY VIRTUE OF THE LAWS NOT BEING COMMON KNOWLEDGE AND TRIAL COURTS [SIC] FAILURE TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATION TO ADMINISTAR [SIC] THE EFFECTIVE APPLICATION OF LAW BY FAILING TO ENSURE THE DEFENDANTS [SIC] AWARENESS OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH LAW AND LEGAL DEFENSE, AND THE TRIAL COURT'S TERMINOLOGY SUSCEPTIBLE TO MULTIPLE INTERPRETATION AND UNCLEAR TO A LAYMEN [SIC] WHICH DOES NOT ELIMINATE BUT GENERATES MISCONCEPTIONS AS TO EXACTLY WHAT LEGAL DEFENSES EXIST AND ARE BEING WAIVED, SUCH STATEMENTS DO NOT WAIVE UNKNOWN OR MISUNDERSTODD [SIC] RIGHTS TO A SPECIFIC STATUTORY AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE OFFENSE CHARGED AND PLEAD GUILTY TO IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW ALL LEGAL DEFENSES TO THE OFFENSE CHARGED AND ALL THE GUARANTEES NECESSARY FOR HIS DEFENSE. II. IT IS MANIFEST INJUSTICE FOR A TRIAL COURT TO APPLY A RULE IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ESTABLISHING THE COURTS, WHERE THE RULE AS APPLIED CAN BE SHOWN TO PERPETUATE MANIFEST INJUSTICE IN A SPECIFIC CASE. -5- A. ISSUE RAISED: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA In essence, defendant-appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his oral motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to attempted murder under Crim.R. 32.1. Specifically, defendant- appellant argues the trial court failed to inform defendant- appellant that the law set forth an affirmative defense of "abandonment of intent" to the offense of attempt. Since defendant-appellant was ignorant of said defense, his plea of guilty was not knowingly and intelligently made. Therefore, defendant-appellant argues, the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw constitutes a manifest injustice and should be reversed. Defendant-appellant's first and second assignments of error are not well taken. B. APPELLANT'S CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA. The doctrine of res judicata may be applied to bar further litigation in a criminal matter of issues that were previously raised in appeal. See State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175; Whitehead v. Gen. Tel. Co. (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 108. In State v. Peeples (Dec. 22, 1988), Cuyahoga App. No. 54708, unreported, this court has already decided the issue defendant- appellant raised regarding his guilty plea ("*** we find there was substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) and that defendant's guilty plea and waiver of rights was (sic) made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently"). Accordingly, -6- appellant's first and second assignments of error are not well taken. Judgment of the trial court affirmed. -7- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. HARPER, P.J. and *PRYATEL, J., CONCUR. DAVID T. MATIA JUDGE * Judge August Pryatel, Retired Judge of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting by assignment. N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate .