[Cite as State v. Litton, 2017-Ohio-7289.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2016-A-0073

 - vs - : 

RUSSELL DWAYNE LITTON, a.k.a. : 

LITTON, RUSSEL DWAYNE 

: 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

: 

Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2016 

CR 00231. 

Judgment: Affirmed. 

Nicholas A. Iarocci, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Shelley M. Pratt, Assistant 

Prosecutor, Ashtabula County Courthouse, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 

44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

Michelle M. French, Law Offices of Michelle M. French, LLC, 28 West Jefferson Street, 

Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Defendant-Appellant). 

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, P.J. 

{¶1} Appellant, Russell Dwayne Litton, a.k.a. Litton, Russel Dwayne, appeals 

his conviction, following his guilty plea, of illegal manufacture of methamphetamine 

(“meth”). At issue is whether the trial court erred in accepting appellant’s guilty plea. 

For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 
 2

{¶2} On June 8, 2016, appellant was charged in a four-count indictment with 

illegal manufacture of meth, a felony-two; illegal assembly or possession of chemicals 

for the manufacture of meth, a felony-three; aggravated possession of meth, a felonyfive; and possessing criminal tools, a felony-five. Appellant pled not guilty. 

{¶3} On December 6, 2016, appellant, then 51 years old, entered a “Written 

Plea of Guilty and Plea Agreement” with the state pursuant to which he agreed to plead 

guilty to illegal manufacture of meth and the state agreed to nolle the remaining counts. 

{¶4} During the plea hearing, appellant told the court he was satisfied with his 

attorney. He acknowledged his attorney had informed him of the charges against him, 

the potential sentence, and his constitutional rights. The court advised appellant that by 

pleading guilty, he would be waiving his right to a jury trial, his right to confront the 

state’s witnesses, his right to subpoena witnesses, his privilege against selfincrimination, and his right to have the state prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

{¶5} Appellant said that he waived these rights; that he was “voluntarily 

pleading guilty of [his] own free will;” and that he understood that by pleading guilty he 

was admitting he committed the offense of illegal manufacture of meth. Appellant 

acknowledged that no threats or promises had been made to induce him to plead guilty. 

{¶6} The court explained to appellant the nature of the charges, his potential 

exposure for illegal manufacturing of meth, and the terms of the plea bargain. 

{¶7} Appellant acknowledged that, pursuant to the plea bargain, in exchange 

for his guilty plea to illegal manufacturing of meth, the state would dismiss the remaining 

charges and recommend that the court sentence him to three years in prison, which 

was the minimum sentence, to run concurrently to his sentence in an unrelated case for 
 3

which the court had recently sentenced him to a prison term. The court advised 

appellant that he had negotiated a jointly recommended sentence and that the court 

would impose that sentence. 

{¶8} The court asked appellant what happened that caused him to get into 

trouble. Appellant said he invited two friends to his apartment for dinner, his codefendant, Michael Lockwood, and a female. After dinner, appellant told them to “go 

ahead and hang out.” He then went to his sister’s house to visit. 

{¶9} Appellant said that when he returned home, “I smelled it, the chemicals.” 

He told Lockwood he was leaving and would be back in awhile. Appellant said he went 

for a walk and smoked a cigarette. He then returned and went in the front door. He 

said he walked out the back door and saw an officer trying to break in his bedroom 

door. Appellant said another officer came in the apartment through the front door and 

arrested him. 

{¶10} The prosecutor then outlined the state’s evidence. He said that Deputy 

Matthew Johns of the Ashtabula County Sheriff’s Department was on foot patrol when 

he saw an older, shaggy-haired male, later identified as appellant, “walk in the 

shadows” near a closed business. Appellant walked past the fence and gates that 

surrounded the business and walked around inside the fenced area for some time. The 

deputy said the area was dark and the business was clearly closed. He thus believed 

appellant was engaging in criminal activity. As a result, the deputy called for backup. 

Deputy Johns continued to watch appellant from a distance. He eventually saw 

appellant exit the fenced area and walk over to a nearby apartment and enter 
 4

Apartment 2, which the deputy later learned was leased by appellant. When appellant 

entered the apartment, he left the front door open, but closed the screen door. 

{¶11} Another deputy arrived and kept watch at the rear of the apartment, while 

Deputy Johns tried to make contact at the front door. As Deputy Johns walked up to the 

front door from the sidewalk, he saw Lockwood inside sitting on a couch in the living 

room. He was wearing blue rubber gloves that extended up his arms. Deputy Johns 

saw chemicals and other items used to manufacture meth spread out on a coffee table 

in front of Lockwood. These included bottles, cut-open ammonium nitrate instant cold 

packs, mason jars, coffee filters, tubing, digital scales, and baggies. Deputy Johns 

smelled the distinct odor of a meth lab coming from the apartment. The deputy said 

that, based on his observations, Lockwood was engaging in the manufacture of meth. 

{¶12} Deputy Johns stepped back from the apartment and advised dispatch to 

send additional units. While waiting for backup, someone closed the front door of the 

apartment and locked it. Due to the hazardous nature of meth labs, Deputy Johns 

kicked in the front door. 

{¶13} When Deputy Johns entered the apartment, he saw that Lockwood was 

no longer in the living room. The deputy called out commands for all persons in the 

apartment to show themselves. The bathroom door opened and Lockwood walked out. 

Deputy Johns arrested Lockwood, the female, and appellant. 

{¶14} Throughout the apartment, Deputy Johns saw items used in the 

manufacture of meth. Elsewhere in the living room, he saw more cut-open instant cold 

packs, coffee filters, tubing, baggies, acid drain opener, mason jars, digital scales with 

residue, two baggies of meth, and lithium batteries. A fan was pointed toward the front 
 5

door to blow the chemical fumes out of the apartment. In the bathroom, he saw the blue 

rubber gloves Lockwood was wearing, two plastic pop bottles, meth lab sludge in the 

toilet water, tubing, and acid drain opener. He saw a respirator in the hallway. In the 

kitchen, the deputy saw two one-pot meth labs. In the back room, he saw a canister of 

sodium nitrate. By the back door, he saw a one-pot meth lab. 

{¶15} The court found appellant voluntarily waived his constitutional rights, 

accepted his guilty plea, and found him guilty. 

{¶16} The court proceeded to sentencing. Appellant’s attorney asked the court 

to adopt and impose the jointly recommended minimum three-year prison sentence. 

{¶17} The court noted that appellant has prior felony convictions and was 

currently in prison on an unrelated case for which the court had recently sentenced him. 

The court sentenced appellant to three years in prison to be served concurrently to the 

sentence in his other case. 

{¶18} Appellant appeals, asserting one assignment of error, as follows: 

{¶19} “Did the Trial Court err to the prejudice of the Appellant by accepting the 

Defendant’s guilty plea without an adequate acknowledgement of guilt by the 

Appellant?” 

{¶20} This court reviews de novo whether the trial court accepted a plea in 

compliance with Crim.R. 11. State v. Dundics, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2015-T-0047, 

2016-Ohio-1368, ¶10. 

{¶21} Appellant argues that, although the record shows his guilty plea was 

knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the plea colloquy was insufficient and the trial court 

should not have accepted his guilty plea because, in appellant’s explanation of 
 6

circumstances, he did not acknowledge responsibility for his crime. He thus argues the 

court should have advised him of the rule set forth in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 

25 (1970), and applied that rule to this case. 

{¶22} “The plea of guilty is a complete admission of the defendant’s guilt.” 

Crim.R. 11(B)(1). The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “a defendant who has 

entered a guilty plea without asserting actual innocence is presumed to understand that 

he has completely admitted his guilt.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio 

St.3d 85, 2004-Ohio-4415, ¶19. 

{¶23} The record shows that appellant voluntarily pled guilty and acknowledged 

that by pleading guilty he was admitting he was guilty of illegal manufacture of meth and 

that the court would immediately impose the stipulated sentence. 

{¶24} Further, during the plea hearing, appellant admitted this was his house 

and that “they were making meth.” He admitted that after he smelled the odor of 

chemicals, he did not tell Lockwood and the female to stop their manufacturing 

activities, but, rather, left them alone in his apartment to continue. And, appellant did 

not dispute Deputy Johns’ report that chemicals and other items used in the 

manufacture of meth were present and in plain view throughout the apartment. 

Appellant thus tacitly admitted he allowed Lockwood and the female to use his 

apartment knowing they were engaged in manufacturing meth. 

{¶25} In State v. Campbell, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0047, 2014-Ohio972, ¶10, this court held that appellant’s conviction of illegal manufacture of meth was 

supported by sufficient evidence where, upon opening the door of appellant’s residence, 
 7

the officer smelled a strong odor of a meth lab inside the residence and found a meth 

lab and other items used in the manufacture of meth. Id. at ¶45-48. 

{¶26} We therefore hold that the trial court did not err in accepting appellant’s 

guilty plea. 

{¶27} For the reasons stated in this opinion, the assignment of error is overruled. 

It is the order and judgment of this court that the judgment of the Ashtabula County 

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., 

concur.