[Cite as State v. Wheeler , 2011-Ohio-3423.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 24112

v. : T.C. NO. 09CR1640 ERIC D. WHEELER : (Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant :

:

. . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 8 th day of July , 2011.

. . . . . . . . . . TIMOTHY J. COLE, Atty. Reg. No. 0084117, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third Street, 5 th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee ROBERT E. SEARFOSS, III, Atty. Reg. No. 0078906, 321 N. Main Street, Bowling Green, Ohio 43402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

. . . . . . . . . . FROELICH, J. {¶ 1} Eric D. Wheeler pled guilty in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas to possession of crack cocaine, a third de gree felony. The trial court had previously overruled, after a hearing, his motion to suppre ss evidence, which claimed that his detention2 and the seizure of the drugs by the police viol ated his Fourth Amendment rights. Wheeler was sentenced to two years in prison, a fine of $1,542, and a six-month driver’s license suspension. {¶ 2} In his sole assignment of error, Wheeler claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. By pleading guilty, however, Wheeler has waived his right to claim error with respect to the trial court’s denial of hi s motion to suppress evidence. E.g., State v. Smith , Clark App. No. 08 CA 60, 2009-Ohio-5048, ¶13; State v. Fitzpatrick , 102 Ohio St.3d 321, 2004-Ohio-3167, ¶78. {¶ 3} A plea of guilty is a complete admission of guilt. E.g., State v. Barrett , Montgomery App. No. 24150, 2011-Ohio-2303, ¶3; Crim.R. 11(B)(1). Consequently, a guilty plea waives all appealable errors that may have occurred in the trial court, including the denial of a motion to suppress, unless such errors precluded Wheeler from knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entering his guilty plea. E.g., State v. Kelley (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 127, paragraph two of the syllabus; Smith at ¶13; State v. Kaznoch , Cuyahoga App. No. 93951, 2010-Ohio-5474, ¶8-9. Wheeler makes no such claim in this case, and we find nothing in the record to suggest that such a defect exists. To the contrary, Wheeler’s counsel stated at the begi nning of the plea hearing: {¶ 4} “[Wheeler] will be entering a plea of gu ilty to the charge of possession, Your Honor. I believe it’s the agreement of the pa rties that it is manda tory time. However, we’re agreeing there would be a cap of two y ears *** which as I informed my client which means he will be getting a one- or two-year sent ence. I’ve also explained to him about the guilty plea, he’s waiving all appellate rights, so he won’t be appealing the Motion to3 Suppress hearing.” {¶ 5} The court asked Wheeler if he underst ood his counsel’s statements and if “[t]his is what you wish to do.” Wheeler re sponded affirmatively, and the court proceeded to take his guilty plea. Wheeler’s guilty plea thus waived the error that he assigns on appeal. {¶ 6} The assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 7} The trial court’s judgment will be affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . GRADY, P.J. and DONOVAN, J., concur. Copies mailed to: Timothy J. Cole Robert E. Searfoss, III Hon. Michael L. Tucker