Crim.R. 32.1 Interpretation
In State v. Zhao, Lorain App.No. 03CA008386, 2004 Ohio 3245, P 8, the Court held:
"In the present case, appellant failed to perfect an appeal of his conviction. Furthermore, he failed to appeal the trial court's denial of his first motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1.
The doctrine of res judicata bars appellant's current challenge of the court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the issues he raises now could have been fully litigated on direct appeal or raised in his initial motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. In State ex rel. Special Prosecutors, the Supreme Court stated as follows:
Crim.R. 32.1 does not vest jurisdiction in the trial court to maintain and determine a motion to withdraw the guilty plea subsequent to an appeal and an affirmance by the appellate court. While Crim.R. 32.1 apparently enlarges the power of the trial court over its judgments without respect to the running of the court term, it does not confer upon the trial court the power to vacate a judgment which has been affirmed by the appellate court, for this action would affect the decision of the reviewing court, which is not within the power of the trial court to do. State ex rel. Special Prosecutors, 55 Ohio St.2d at 97-98.