[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, 2018
ATTORNEYS 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 44113 
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.: 

{¶1} Jaron Solomon (“Solomon”) appeals from the 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 pertinent law, we affirm. The apposite facts 

follow. 

{¶3} On October 13, 2015, the court denied Solomon’s motion to suppress evidence, 

and he pled guilty to one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) with a 

firearm specification. On December 2, 2015, the court 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 plea.” This court granted Solomon leave to 

appeal in Solomon I on February 22, 2016. On March 7, 2016, the 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 voluntarily made where he pleaded guilty with the erroneous belief 
that 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 Solomon’s conviction for 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, and 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 through counsel, filed a second motion to 

withdraw guilty plea in the trial court, arguing that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and 

intelligently made, because “both his 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 motion on September 18, 2017. It is from this order that Solomon 

appeals. 

{¶8} “Res judicata bars the assertion of claims against a valid, final judgment of 

conviction that have been or could 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 raised the issue of his belief that he could 

appeal the denial of his motion to suppress after 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 recover of 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 Cuyahoga County Court of Common 

Pleas 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. 

 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J., and 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR