[Cite as State v. Driscoll, 2019-Ohio-1124.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 107165

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

LOUIS DRISCOLL

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-18-624907-A 

BEFORE: E.T. Gallagher, P.J., Blackmon, J., and Sheehan, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 28, 2019 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Ruth R. Fischbein-Cohen 

3552 Severn Road, #613 

Cleveland, Ohio 44118 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. O’Malley 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Timothy R. Troup 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

The Justice Center, 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Louis Driscoll, appeals from his convictions following a guilty 

plea. He raises the following assignment of error for review: 

1. Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated herein.1

{¶2} After careful review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm Driscoll’s 

convictions. 

I. Procedural and Factual History

{¶3} In January 2018, Driscoll was named in a 13-count indictment. The indictment 

stemmed from allegations that Driscoll produced a firearm and fired two shots at a victim 

 1

 During oral arguments, counsel for Driscoll briefly raised arguments concerning the length of Driscoll’s 

sentence. Driscoll, however, failed to present any arguments pertaining to his sentence in his appellate briefing and 

failed to file a notice of his intent to present authorities supporting such arguments before oral argument. Because the 

state was not afforded the opportunity to present a response, we decline to address arguments concerning Driscoll’s 

sentence. App.R. 16(A)(7). 
following a physical altercation. Driscoll subsequently was observed firing three shots into the 

air while standing in the middle of East 100th Street in Cleveland, Ohio. It was further alleged 

that Driscoll approached a victim while she stood on her front porch and held her against her will 

at gunpoint. After Driscoll was apprehended, the police discovered $752, a plastic baggie 

containing cocaine, and a plastic baggie containing bath salts on Driscoll’s person. 

{¶4} In March 2018, Driscoll entered into a plea agreement with the state and pleaded 

guilty to felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), with a three-year firearm 

specification; having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2); 

abduction in violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2), with a one-year firearm specification and forfeiture 

specifications; discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited premises in violation of R.C. 

2923.162(A)(3), with a three-year firearm specification; and drug possession in violation of R.C. 

2925.11(A), with a one-year firearm specification and forfeiture specifications. The remaining 

counts of Driscoll’s original indictment were nolled. 

{¶5} Following an extensive Crim.R. 11 colloquy, the trial court accepted Driscoll’s plea 

and found him guilty of the foregoing offenses. At sentencing, the trial court imposed an 

aggregate prison term of 23 years. 

{¶6} Driscoll now appeals from his convictions. 

II. Law and Analysis

{¶7} In his sole assignment of error, Driscoll argues the evidence supporting his 

convictions were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, Driscoll contends 

that the police violated the constitutional protections afforded against unreasonable searches and 

seizures by searching his person without his consent or sufficient probable cause. 
{¶8} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14, 

of the Ohio Constitution guarantee the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. 

State v. Orr, 91 Ohio St.3d 389, 391, 745 N.E.2d 1036 (2001). The Fourth Amendment 

proscribes all unreasonable searches and seizures. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825, 

102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). It is a restraint on the government. “[S]earches 

conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se 

unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and 

well-delineated exceptions.” (Footnote omitted.) Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 

S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). 

{¶9} In this case, however, Driscoll’s convictions resulted from guilty pleas following a 

sufficient Crim.R. 11 colloquy and explanation of the constitutional and nonconstitutional rights 

Driscoll would be waiving by pleading guilty. “A plea of guilty is a complete admission of the 

defendant’s guilt.” Crim.R. 11(B)(1). A defendant who enters a plea of guilty waives the right 

to appeal all nonjurisdictional issues arising at prior stages of the proceedings, although the 

defendant may contest the constitutionality of the plea itself. State v. Darling, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 104517, 2017-Ohio-7603, ¶ 12, citing State v. Lewis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

102939, 2015-Ohio-5267, ¶ 16. Thus, by entering into a guilty plea, a defendant waives any 

complaint as to claims of constitutional violations not related to the entry of the guilty plea. 

State v. Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, ¶ 105. 

{¶10} On appeal, Driscoll’s assigned error does not relate to the constitutionality of the 

plea itself, nor does it challenge the adequacy of the trial court’s Crim.R. 11 colloquy. 

Accordingly, we find Driscoll has waived his right to assert his search and seizure arguments on 

appeal. Driscoll’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 
{¶11} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the common pleas court to carry this 

judgment into execution. The defendant’s convictions 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. 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., and 

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., CONCUR