[Cite as State v. Soloman , 2018-Ohio-2290.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 106362

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs. JARON SOLOMON

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-15-597809-A

BEFORE: Blackmon, J., E.A. Gallagher, A.J., and Celebrezze, J.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 14, 2018ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Mark A. Stanton Cuyahoga County Public Defender By: Paul Kuzmins Assistant Public Defender 310 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 200 Cleveland, Ohio 44113

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Anthony Thomas Miranda Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.: {¶1} Jaron Solomon (“Solomon”) appeals from th e trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw guilty plea and assigns the following error for our review: I. The trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing and grant appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea. {¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertin ent law, we affirm. The apposite facts

follow. {¶3} On October 13, 2015, the court denied So lomon’s motion to suppress evidence, and he pled guilty to one count of felonious assault in viol ation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) with a firearm specification. On December 2, 2015, the c ourt sentenced Solomon to four years in prison for the assault to run consecutive to three years in prison for the firearm specification, for an aggregate sentence of seven years in prison. {¶4} On February 1, 2016, Solomon, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal and a motion for leave to file delayed appeal. State v. Solomon , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104072, 2017-Ohio-1357 (“ Solomon I”). On February 17, 2016, Solomon, again acting pro se, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that the court “failed to inform defendant of maximum penalty prior to accepting his guilty pl ea.” This court granted Solomon leave to appeal in Solomon I on February 22, 2016. On March 7, 2016, th e trial court denied Solomon’s motion to withdraw guilty plea. {¶5} On October 19, 2016, Solomon, this time acting through counsel, filed his appellate brief in Solomon I. His sole assigned error was: “Appellant’s change of plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntar ily made where he pleaded guilty with the erroneous beliefthat he could appeal the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress.” It is undisputed that Solomon’s motion to withdraw guilty plea was filed after his notice of appeal in Solomon I. {¶6} On April 13, 2017, this court affirmed So lomon’s conviction fo r felonious assault with a firearm specification. See Solomon I. Although the court noted that “Solomon’s motion to withdraw his plea was not before us on appeal,” the entire opinion analyzed whether Solomon’s plea was “not knowingly, voluntarily, a nd intelligently entered into * * * because the trial court did not inform him that by pleading guilty, he would not be able to appeal the trial

court’s denial of his motion to suppress.” Id. at ¶ 6. This court concluded that, absent a defendant raising the issue on the record prior to pleading guilty, there is no legal authority “that requires a trial court to apprise a criminal defendant that by pleading guilty, he or she could not appeal the trial court’s ruling denying a motion to suppress.” Id . at ¶ 14-15. {¶7} On August 15, 2017, Solomon, acting thr ough counsel, filed a second motion to withdraw guilty plea in the tria l court, arguing that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, because “both hi s counsel and the Court failed to inform him that agreeing to plead guilty, as opposed to no contest, foreclosed his ability to appeal the suppression motion.”

The trial court denied this mo tion on September 18, 2017. It is from this order that Solomon appeals. {¶8} “Res judicata bars the assertion of cl aims against a valid, final judgment of

conviction that have been or coul d have been raised on appeal. * * * Ohio courts of appeals have applied res judicata to bar the assertion of claims in a motion to withdraw a guilty plea that were

or could have been raised at trial or on appeal.” State v. Ketterer , 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 59.{¶9} In the case at hand, Solomon could have rais ed the issue of his belief that he could appeal the denial of his motion to suppress afte r pleading guilty; however, he did not raise this issue in his first motion to withdraw guilty plea. Furthermore, Solomon did raise this precise issue in his direct appeal. Solomon I. For these two reasons, his allegation is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The court did not err by denying Solomon’s second motion to withdraw guilty plea and his sole assigned error is overruled. {¶10} Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recove r of appellant co sts herein taxed.

The court finds there were reas onable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. Th e defendant’s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is ter minated. 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 Appella te Procedure.

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J., and FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR