[Cite as State v. Reeder , 2021-Ohio-4558.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-21-08

v. CHADWICK T. REEDER, O P I N I O N

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-21-09

v. CHADWICK T. REEDER, O P I N I O N

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-21-10

v. CHADWICK T. REEDER, O P I N I O N

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.Case Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-2- Appeals from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial Court Nos. CR 2019 0247, CR 2019 0346 and CR 2019 0474 Judgments Affirmed Date of Decision: December 27, 2021

APPEARANCES: 

### Karin L. Coble for Appellant 

### Jana E. Emerick for Appellee

ZIMMERMAN, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Chadwick T. Reeder, (“Reeder”) appeals his three convictions and sentences of the Allen County Common Plea s Court in case numbers CR 2019 0247, CR 2019 0346, and CR 2019 0474. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. {¶2} In case number CR 2019 0247 (“0247” hereafter), the Allen Count y Grand Jury indicted Reeder as to events that occurred on Septem ber 14, 2017 through March 29, 2018 on the following criminal counts: Count One of Trafficking in Hashish in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), (C)( 7)(c), a third-degree felony; Count Two of Trafficking in Marijuana in violation of R .C. 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(3)(a) and (b), a fourth-degree felony; Counts Three, Four, and Five ofCase Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-3- Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A) (1), (C)(1)(a), fourth-degree felonies; Count Six of Trafficking in Marijuana i n violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(3)(a), a fifth-degree felony; Count Seven fo r Possession of Hashish in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(7)(c), a fifth-deg ree felony; and Count Eight for Aggravated Possession of Drugs in violation of R.C. 2 925.11(A), (C)(1)(a), a fifth-degree felony. (Case No. CR 2019 0247, Doc. No. 1). The indictment included firearm specifications under R.C. 2941.141( A) and specifications for forfeiture of guns, money, and property in a drug case under R.C. 2941.1417(A) as to Counts Seven and Eight. 1 ( Id. ). {¶3} In case number CR 2019 0346 (“0346” hereafter), the Allen Count y Grand Jury indicted Reeder as to events that occurred on March 10, 2019 on the following five criminal counts: Count One for Possession of Ha shish in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(7)(g), a second-degree felony; Count Tw o for Possession of Marijuana in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(3)(d), a thir d-degree felony;

Count Three for Possession of Hashish in violation of R.C. 2925 .11(A), (C)(7)(c), a fifth-degree felony; Count Four for Aggravated Possession of Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a), a fifth-degree felony; and Count Five for Possession of Cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(4)(a), also a f ifth-degree felony.

1 The State was seeking the forfeiture of four different firearm s, $23,408.00 in U.S. currency, and a security system. (Case No. CR 2019 0247, Doc. No. 1).Case Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-4- (Case No. CR 2019 0346, Doc. No. 1). All the Counts in this in dictment included a specification for money in a drug case under R.C. 2941.1417(A ). 2 ( Id. ). {¶4} In case number CR 2019 0474 (hereinafter “0474”), the Allen Cou nty Grand Jury indicted Reeder as to events that occurred on August 7, 2019 on a single count of Possession of Hashish in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(7)(e), a thirddegree felony, which included a specification of money in a dru g case under R.C. 2941.1417(A). 3 (Case No. CR 2019 0474, Doc. No. 1). {¶5} On November 21, 2019, Reeder entered pleas of guilty, under a negotiated plea agreement, in all three cases. Specifically, i n case number 0247, Reeder pleaded guilty to all eight counts in the indictment, to the firearm specifications in Counts Seven and Eight, and to the forfeiture specifications in Count Seven in exchange for the dismissal of seven specificatio ns for the forfeitures of a gun, money, and property (in Count Eight). In case number 0346, Reeder pleaded guilty to an amended Count One for Possession of Hashis h in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(7)(e), a third-degree felony, as well as t he forfeiture specification in amended Count One, and all four remaining coun ts (as indicted) in exchange the dismissal of the specifications for the forfeiture s of money in Counts Two, Three, Four, and Five. And, in case number 0474, Reeder pleaded guilty to

2 The State sought forfeiture of $3,060.00 in U.S. currency. (C ase No. CR 2019 0346, Doc. No. 1). 3 The State was seeking to forfeit $2,044.00 in U.S. currency. (Case No. CR 2019 0474, Doc. No. 1).Case Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-5- the charge of Possession of Hashish in violation of R.C. 2925.1 1(A), (C)(7)(e), a third-degree felony as well as the specification for the forfei ture of money. {¶6} During the colloquy between the trial court and Reeder in the c ourse of the change-of-plea hearing, the State advised the trial cour t that a part of the plea agreement, as to a nonmerger stipulation between the parties, w as inadvertently not included on the paperwork. After notifying the trial court of such omission, the trial court instructed the State to add the nonmerger stipulation to the “other” section of the plea form or wherever space was available on the plea forms for each case. The additions were made and the subject of merger was explained to Reeder in open court by the trial court. No objection was lodged by Reeder as to the issue of merger

thereafter. {¶7} Reeder’s judgment entries of conviction were filed in the trial court on November 21, 2019 and a sentencing hearing was scheduled in all cases for January 23, 2020. {¶8} At sentencing, the trial court determined in case 0247 that non e of the counts merged for the purposes of sentencing (under the nonmerg er stipulation) and that mandatory prison terms were required for the firearm speci fications in Counts Seven and Eight. Thereafter, in case 0247, the trial court sen tenced Reeder to 24 months in prison as to Count One; 12 months as to Count Two; 15 months each as to Counts Three, Four, and Five; nine months as to Count Six; a nd six months eachCase Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-6- on Counts Seven and Eight. (Case No. CR 2019 0247, Doc. No. 68 ). Reeder was sentenced to two mandatory (one year) terms in prison as to the firearm specifications in Counts Seven and Eight. ( Id. ). The trial court further ordered that Count One be served consecutive to Count Two; that Counts Three , Four, and Five (although served concurrently to one another) be served consecu tive to all other counts; that Count Six be served consecutive to the other count s; and that Counts Seven and Eight (be served concurrently to one another), but co nsecutive to the other counts for a total of 66 months in prison. ( Id. ). The trial court further ordered Reeder to serve two mandatory one-year prison terms (for the fi rearm specifications in Counts Seven and Eight) to be served consecutive to each oth er and consecutive to the other counts. ( Id. ). Thus, the total sentence in case 0247 was seven years and six months in prison. ( Id. ). {¶9} In case 0346, the trial court determined that none of the count s merged for the purposes of sentencing (under the nonmerger stipulation ) and that mandatory prison terms were not required, but a term of prison was presum ed for Count One. Thereafter, in case 0346, the trial court sentenced Reeder to 2 4 months (each) in prison as to Counts One and Two; to 9 months in prison (each) a s to Counts Three and Four; and to 12 months in prison as to Count Five. The tri al court further ordered that Count One be served concurrently to Count Two; tha t the terms in Counts Three and Four be served concurrently to one another, bu t consecutive toCase Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-7- Counts One, Two, and that Count Five be served consecutive to t he other counts. Thus, in case 0346, the trial court imposed a total of three ye ars and nine months in prison. Further, the trial court ordered the terms to be serve d consecutive to the terms imposed in case 0247. {¶10} In case 0474, the trial court determined that a mandatory priso n term is not required, but a prison term is presumed. (Case No. CR 2 019 0474, Doc. No. 15). Subsequently, the trial court sentenced Reeder to 36 mont hs in prison as to Count One to be served consecutive to the terms imposed in case s 0247 and 0346. (Case No. CR 2019 0474, Doc. No. 15). {¶11} Thus, the trial court’s aggregate sentence of Reeder in the thr ee cases is 14 years and three months. ( Id. ). {¶12} The trial court filed its judgment entries of sentencing on Jan uary 24, 2020 in each case. (Case No. CR 2019 0247, Doc. No. 68); (Case No. CR 2019 0346, Doc. No. 38); (Case No. CR 2019 0474, Doc. No. 15). {¶13} We granted appellant’s request for a delayed appeal in each cas e on April 7, 2021. We have consolidated all three cases for the pu rpose of appeal. Reeder assigns four assignments of error, which we will address in the order presented.Case Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-8- Assignment of Error I The trial court committed plain error by sentencing Mr. Reeder to two mandatory, consecutive one-year terms in violation of statute. {¶14} In his first assignment of error, Reeder argues that the trial court erred by imposing two mandatory, consecutive one-year prison terms fo r the firearm specifications (in case 0247 in Counts Seven and Eight) under R .C. 2941.141(A). Specifically, Reeder asserts that his felonies were “committed as part of the same act or transaction”, and thus are excepted under R.C. 2929.14. Standard of Review {¶15} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may reverse a sent ence “only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that th e record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or t hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum , 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that “‘which will produc e in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts soug ht to be established.’” Id. at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford , 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. Analysis {¶16} Here, the trial court sentenced Reeder to 66 months on the eigh t indicted counts in case 0247 pursuant to his negotiated plea ag reement. (Case No.Case Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-9- CR 2019 0247, Doc. No. 68). Then, the trial court ordered two (2) additional oneyear prison terms as to the firearm specifications (in Counts S even and Eight) to be

served consecutive to each other and consecutive to the other c ounts for a total sentence of seven years and six months in prison in case 0247. ( Id. ). {¶17} Important to this discussion, R.C. 2929.14 governs sentencing f or firearm specifications. R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a) provides in its pertinent parts: (C)(1)(a) Subject to division (C)(1)(b) of this section, if a m andatory prison term is imposed upon an offender pursuant to division (B )(1)(a) of this section for having a firearm on or about the offender’s person or under the offender’s control while committing a felony, if a mandatory prison term is imposed upon an offender pursuant to division (B)(1)(c) of this section for committing a felony spec ified in that division by discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, or if both types of mandatory prison terms are imposed, the offender shall serve any mandatory prison term imposed under either division consecutively to any other mandatory prison term imposed under either division or under division (B)(1)(d) of this section, consecutively to and prior to any prison term imposed for the underlying felony pursuant to division (A), (B)(2), or (B)(3) o f this section or any other section of the Revised Code, and consecuti vely to any other prison term or mandatory prison term previously or subsequently imposed upon the offender. R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a) (Oct. 17, 2017) (current version R.C. 292 9.14(C)(1)(a) Apr. 12, 2021). Reeder relies on R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b) in his asser tion that the trial court erred by imposing the firearm specification terms to run consec utively to one another, rather than, concurrent. {¶18} R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b) sets forth an exception to the general ru le espoused in R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a) and states as follows:Case Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-10- If a court imposes a prison term on an offender under division (B)(1)(a) of this section, * * * a court shall not impose more than one prison term on an offender under division (B)(1)(a) of this sec tion for felonies committed as part of the same act or transaction

. (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b) (Oct. 17, 2017) (curre nt version R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b) Apr. 12, 2021). {¶19} Significant to this appeal and because it is dispositive of the issue before us, Reeder acknowledged and stipulated (at his change-of -plea hearing) that each of the counts in the indictment (in case 0247) were separa te acts and merger would not apply. (Nov. 21, 2019 Tr. at 19-22). Put more plain ly, Reeder entered into a plea agreement with the State to plead guilty to the fir earm specifications and

to waive the protections afforded him under R.C. 2941.25 (by virtue of h is nonmerger stipulation) when he stipulated that his acts were separate and merger did not apply

. See State v. Rogers , 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 20, quoting State v. Underwood , 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 29 (“It is possible for an accused to expressly waive the protection afforded by R. C. 2941.25, such as by ‘stipulating in the plea agreement that the offenses were co mmitted with separate animus.’”). Thus, the trial court did not err (at sentencing) by imposing consecutive prison terms for his firearm specifications under Counts Seven and Eight considering Reeder’s “intentional relinquishment [] of a known right”. Id. quoting State v. Quarterman , 140 Ohio St.3d 464, 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶ 15 quoting United

States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993), quoting JohnsonCase Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-11- v. Zerbst , 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 (1938). Consequently, Reeder’s sentence is not contrary to law. {¶20} Accordingly, Reeder’s first assignment of error is overruled. Assignment of Error II

The conviction for offenses which do not exist in Ohio law are void, or, alternatively, voidable. {¶21} In his second assignment of error, Reeder argues that the THC identified in Counts Three, Four, Five, and Eight in case 0247 and Count Four in case 0346 is not a Schedule I controlled substance, and thus is not defined as an

offense under the Ohio Revised Code. 4 Specifically, in this assignment of error, Reeder attacks the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial cou rt. Standard of Review {¶22} A conviction based on an indictment which does not charge an of fense is void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter. See State v. Harper , 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, ¶ 21-22, quoting State v. Perry , 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 178 (1967). Jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review und er a de novo standard

of review. See State v. Stewart , 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-21-05, 2021-Ohio-2294, ¶ 6. “De novo review is independent, without deference to the lo wer court’s

4 Indeed, Reeder raised this issu e in pretrial motions to dismis s the indictment filed on August 14 and October 1, 2019, and the State filed its memorandum in opposition on Oc tober 30, 2019. ( See Case No. CR 2019 0247, Doc. Nos. 19, 20, 36). However, the trial court never ru led on those issues becau se Reeder ultimately entered a guilty plea on November 21, 2019. (Case No. CR 2019 0247, Doc. Nos. 57, 58).Case Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-12- decision.” State v. Hudson, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-12-38, 2013-Ohio-647, ¶ 27, citing Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. of Ohio , 64 Ohio St.3d 145, 147 (1992). Analysis {¶23} “‘Ohio’s Criminal Rules and statutes provide for the direct rev iew of criminal judgments through appeal , and collateral attacks through postconviction petitions, habeas corpus, and motions to vacate.’” (Emphasis a dded.) State v. Love , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 0039, 2018-Ohio-1140, ¶ 17, quotin g Lingo v. State , 138 Ohio St.3d 427, 2014-Ohio-1052, ¶ 44. Thus, “[t]he authori ty to vacate a void judgment is ‘an inherent power possessed by Ohio courts.’” Id. at ¶ 18, quoting

Patton v. Diemer , 35 Ohio St.3d 68 (1988), paragraph four of syllabus, and citi ng Lingo at ¶ 48. {¶24} A judgment rendered by a trial court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is void and issues of voidness can be raised at an y time. Id. at ¶ 19, citing Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta , 141 Ohio St.3d 75, 2014-Ohio-4275, ¶ 17. “Furthermore, the doctrine of res judicata can be surmounted wh ere a judgment is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. , citing id. , State Wilson , 73 Ohio St.3d 40, 44-45 (1995), fn. 6, and Perry , 10 Ohio St.2d at 178-179. {¶25} The Supreme Court of Ohio recently “realign[ed]” its void-versu svoidable jurisprudence with “the traditional understanding of w hat constitutes aCase Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-13- void judgment,” to hold that “[w]hen a case is within a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and the accused is properly before the court, any error in the exercise of that jurisdiction in imposing postrelease control renders the c ourt’s judgment voidable,” not void. Harper at ¶ 4-5 and at ¶ 41-43. The Supreme Court of Ohio traced the roots of that “understanding” back 150 years to its 1857 decision in Ex parte Shaw , 7 Ohio St. 81 (1857), and through its decision, more than a c entury later, in Perry . Under the “traditional” rule, ‘a judgment of conviction is void if rendered by a court having either no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or no jurisdiction of the subject matter, i.e., jurisdiction to try the defendant for the crime for which he was convicted . * * * Conversely, where a judgment of conviction is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and jurisdiction of the subject matter, such j udgment is not void, and the cause of action merged therein becomes res judicata as between the state and the defendant.’ (Emphasis added.) Harper at ¶ 21-22, quoting Perry at 178-179. {¶26} “Subject-matter jurisdiction,” the Supreme Court of Ohio noted, “refers to the constitutional or statutory power of a court to adjudicate a particular class or type of case.” Harper at ¶ 23. Article IV, Section 4(B), of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 2931.03 confers upon a common pleas court subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases. See Harper at ¶ 24-25. And, a trial court has jurisdiction over any person appearing before it under a valid indictment. See Stacy

v. Van Coren , 18 Ohio St.2d 188, 189 (1969); Page v. Green , 174 Ohio St. 178, 178-179 (1963).Case Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-14- {¶27} Even though Reeder entered his guilty pleas before the trial co urt rendered its decision on his motions to dismiss (i.e., “invalid indictments”) he has not waived this objection by pleading guilty because he is atta cking the subjectmatter jurisdiction of the trial court to render convictions as opposed to defects in his pleas under Crim.R. 11. A defect in subject-matter jurisdi ction requires

correction whether or not it was raised in the trial court and cannot be waived because it goes to the heart of the trial court’s power to adju dicate a case on the

merits. See Rosen v. Celebrezze , 117 Ohio St.3d 241, 2008-Ohio-853, ¶ 45, quoting Pratts v. Hurley , 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, ¶ 11. Consequently, we mu st address Reeder’s second assignment of error on the merits. {¶28} Here, Reeder was convicted in case 0247 in Counts Three, Four, and Five of Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs in violation of R.C. 29 25.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(a), all fourth degree felonies. (Case No. CR 2019 0247, Doc. No. 58). R.C. 2925.03 provides in its pertinent parts: (A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following: (1) Sell or offer to sell a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog;

* * * (C) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of one of the following: (1) If the drug involved in the violation is any compound , mixture, preparation, or substance included in schedule I or schedule II, withCase Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-15- the exception of marihuana , cocaine, L.S.D., heroin, hashish , and any controlled substance analog, whoever violates division (A) of t his section is guilty of aggravated trafficking in drugs. The penal ty for the offense shall be determined as follows: (a) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(1)(b), (c), (d), ( e), or (f) of this section, aggravated trafficking in drugs is a fe lony of the fourth degree, and division (C) of section 2929.13 of the Revis ed Code applies in determining whether to impose a prison term on the offender. (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(a) (Sept. 14, 201 6) (current version R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(a) June 29, 2019). Moreover, Reeder was convicted of Aggravated Possession of Drugs in case 0247 in Count Eight of A ggravated Possession of Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a), a fifth degree felony. (Case No. CR 2019 0247, Doc. No. 58). R.C. 2925.11 st ates in its pertinent parts: (A) No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog.

* * * (C) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of one of the following: (1) If the drug involved in the violation is a compound , mixture, preparation, or substance included in schedule I or II, with the exception of marihuana , cocaine, L.S.D., heroin, hashish , and any controlled substance analog, whoever violates division (A) of t his section is guilty of aggravated possession of drugs. The penalt y for the offense shall be determined as follows: (a) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(1)(b), (c), (d ), or (e) of this section, aggravated possession of drugs is a felony of the fifthCase Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-16- degree, and division (B) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code applies in determining whether to impose a prison term on the offender. (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a) (Sept. 14, 2016) (current version R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a) Mar. 22, 2019). Important to this a ppeal, all four counts enumerated the Schedule I substance as “THC, a Schedule I drug”

. 5 (Case No. CR 2019 0247, Doc. No. 1). {¶29} Additionally, Reeder was convicted in case 0346 of Count Four f or Aggravated Possession of Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a), a fifthdegree felony. (Case No. CR 2019 0346, Doc. No. 29). R.C. 29 25.11 states in its relevant parts: (A) No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog.

* * * (C) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of one of the following: (1) If the drug involved in the violation is a compound , mixture, preparation, or substance included in schedule I or II, with the exception of marihuana , cocaine, L.S.D., heroin, any fentanyl-related compound, hashish , and any controlled substance analog, whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of aggravated p ossession of drugs. The penalty for the offense shall be determined as fo llows: (a) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(1)(b), (c), (d), o r (e) of this section, aggravated possession of drugs is a felony of the fifth degree, and division (B) of section 2929.13 of the Revise d Code

5 The indictment contained language under Counts Three, Four, an d Five that the drug (i.e., THC) was “in an amount less than the bulk amount.” (Case No. CR 2019 0247, Doc. No. 1).Case Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-17- applies in determining whether to impose a prison term on the offender. (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a) (Oct. 31, 2018) ( current version R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a) Mar. 22, 2019). Significantly, Count Fou r also sets forth that the drug involved in this violation “is a compound, mixture, pr eparation, or substance included in Schedule I or II, to wit: THC, a Schedul e I drug.” (Case No. CR 2019 0346, Doc. No. 1). {¶30} Reeder argues that THC is not a Schedule I controlled substance

. Because the answer to this assignment of error involves a quest ion of statutory interpretation, which is a question of law, we apply a de novo standard of review. Hudson, 2013-Ohio-647, at ¶ 27, citing State v. Consilio , 114 Ohio St. 3d 295, 2007- Ohio-4163, ¶ 8. {¶31} R.C. 3719.01(C) defines a “‘[c]ontroled [s]ubstance’” to mean “ a drug, compound , mixture, preparation, or substance included in schedule I , II, III, IV, or V.” (Emphasis added.) (Mar. 19, 2015) (current version R.C. 3719.01(C) Mar. 22, 2020). See State v. Naples , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 17CA011169, 2018-Ohio2562, ¶ 18, citing R.C. 3719.01(C). Moreover, R.C. 3719.01(BB) defined “[s]chedule I” to mean a “controlled substance schedule[] * * * established pursuant to section 3719.41”. (Mar. 19, 2015) (current version R.C. 371 9.01(V) Mar. 22, 2020).Case Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-18- {¶32} Since the focus of Reeder’s assignment of error is whether THC constitutes a Schedule I controlled substance, we direct our at tention to Schedules

of controlled substances that were in effect at the time Reeder committed his

offenses set forth under R.C. 3719.41. 6 Under R.C. 3719.41(C), “[h]allucinogens”

were defined as [a]ny material, compound , mixture, or preparation that contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances , including their salts, isomers , and salts of isomers, unless specifically excepted under federal drug abuse control laws, whenever the existence of thes e salts, isomers , and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation. For the purposes of this division only, “isomer” includes the optical isomers , position isomers, and geometric isomers. (Emphasis added.) 7 Indeed, “[t]etrahydrocannabinols” was listed as a “[h]allucinogen[]” under R.C. 3719.41(C)(27). 8 Significantly, “THC is [an acronym for] tetrahydrocannabinol, the principal psychoactive c onstituent [i.e., compound] of the cannabis plant.” Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. McDermott , 603 Fed. Appx. 374, 375 (6th Cir.2015), fn. 2 . See also State v. Naples at ¶ 2, citing

Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. at 375, fn. 2. Moreover, THC is an active isomer

6 Notably, R.C. 3719.41 was amended by Am.Sub. S.B. 57, 2019 Ohi o Laws 13, effective March 22 2020, enabling the State Board of Pha rmacy to adopt rules in accordan ce with Chapter 119 of the Ohio Revised in establishing five different controlled-substance schedules. R. C. 3719.41(A). Those five controlledsubstance schedules are now situated exclusively under Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 4729:9-1 titled Controlled Substance Schedules. See Ohio Adm.Code 4729:9-1-01-4729:9-1-05. 7 Importantly, the language in the 2014 and 2018 versions of R.C . 3719.41(C) were analogous. Compare R.C. 3719.41(C) (July 10, 2014), with (Oct. 31, 2018), and (current version Ohio Adm.Code 4729:9-1-01(D) Oct. 19, 2020). 8 The 2014 and 2018 versions of R.C. 3719.41(C)(27) were also an alogous. Compare R.C. 3719.41(C)(27) (July 10, 2014), with (Oct. 31, 2018), and (current version Ohio Adm.Code 4729:9-1-01(D)(31) Oct. 19, 2020).Case Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-19- present in cannabis. See Bacon v. Commissioner of Social Sec. , 2012 WL 3112374, *5 (N.D.Ohio, May 30, 2012); U.S. v. Caseer , 399 F.3d 828, 848 (6th Cir.2005) (noting Marijuana is the common name for “all parts of the genu s Cannabis sativa L.” (cannabis plant); identifying THC as tetrahydrocannabinols “the main psychoactive substance produced naturally by the marijuana plan t”; and observing that the compounds of these structures contain optical isomers ). See also R.C. 3719.01(L) (Mar. 19, 2015) (defining an “[i]somer” as an “optic al isomer” “except as otherwise expressly stated”) compare with R.C. 3719.41(C) (July 10, 2014) (expressly including “optical isomers” as well as “position iso mers” and “geometric isomers”) with (current version R.C. 3719.01 Mar. 22, 2020) (containing no definition for an isomer). {¶33} Because THC is a chemical compound that contains isomers and is an acronym for “[t]etrahydrocannabinols”, which was listed as a Sc hedule I controlled substance at the time Reeder committed his offenses, we conclud e that Reeder’s argument that THC is not a Schedule I controlled substance is w ithout merit. Moreover, because his jurisdictional argument is predicated on what we have concluded to be a meritless assertion, we conclude that the tri al court acted with subject-matter jurisdiction herein. {¶34} Accordingly, Reeder’s second assignment of error is overruled.Case Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-20- Assignment of Error III Defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance, causing Mr. Reeder’s guilty plea to be unknowing and involuntary because Mr. Reeder pled guilty to offenses which do not exist in Ohio l aw. Assignment of Error IV Trial Counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by stipulating in a plea agreement that no counts would merge. {¶35} In his third and fourth assignments of error, Reeder asserts th at his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by all owing Reeder to plead guilty to offenses that “do not exist in Ohio law” and by stipu lating at Reeder’s

indicted acts were separate acts that do not merge for the purposes of sentencing. Standard of Review {¶36} “In criminal proceedings, a defendant has the right to effectiv e assistance of counsel under both the United States and Ohio Con stitutions.” State

v. Evick , 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2019-05-010, 2020-Ohio-3072, ¶ 45, c iting Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution, Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984), and

State v. Hester , 45 Ohio St.2d 71 (1976), holding modified , State v. Cole , 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982). A defendant asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must establish: (1) counsel’s performance was deficient or unre asonable under the circumstances; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. State v.

Kole , 92 Ohio St.3d 303, 306 (2001), citing Strickland at 687. In order to showCase Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-21- counsel’s conduct was deficient or unreasonable, the defendant must overcome the presumption that counsel provided competent representation and must show that counsel’s actions were not trial strategies prompted by reasona ble professional judgment. Strickland at 689. Counsel is entitled to a strong presumption that all decisions fall within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. State v.

Sallie , 81 Ohio St.3d 673, 675 (1998). Tactical or strategic trial de cisions, even if unsuccessful, do not generally constitute ineffective assistanc e. State v. Frazier , 61 Ohio St.3d 247, 255 (1991). Rather, the errors complained of mu st amount to a

substantial violation of counsel’s essential duties to his clie nt. See State v. Bradley , 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 141-142 (1989). Analysis {¶37} “When a defendant enters a plea of guilty, he is making a ‘com plete admission of [his or her] guilt.’” State v. Welly , 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-15-37, 2016- Ohio-863, ¶ 22, quoting Crim.R. 11(B)(1). “A criminal defendan t who pleads guilty is limited on appeal; he [or she] may only attack the voluntary , knowing, and intelligent nature of the plea and ‘“may not thereafter raise i ndependent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occur red prior to the entry of the guilty plea.”’” State v. Mata , 3d Dist. Allen 1-04-54, 2004-Ohio-6669, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Spates , 64 Ohio St.3d 269, 271-272 (1992), quoting Tollett v.

Henderson , 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 1608 (1973). Consequently, “[a]Case Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-22- guilty plea constitutes a waiver of a claim of ineffective assi stance of counsel unless counsel’s conduct affected the voluntary nature of the plea.” Id. at ¶ 13. {¶38} Because we previously concluded in Reeder’s second assignment o f error that Counts Three, Four, Five, and Eight (in case 0247) a nd Count Four (in case 0346) are valid criminal offenses, we will not conclude th at Reeder’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by advising him to plead guilty to those offenses. As such, Reeder’s argument that his pleas w ere not made knowingly and voluntarily is overruled. {¶39} Next, Reeder asserts that his trial counsel rendered ineffectiv e assistance of counsel by pleading him guilty under (a negotiate d plea agreement) to counts that should have merged, and thus were made unknowing an d involuntary. Specifically, Reeder argues that he did not know the practical ramifications of merger, and hence, his plea was involuntary . ( See Appellant’s Brief at 9). In our review of the record, Reeder received the benefit of his bargai n, which included the dismissal of numerous specifications (in case 0247) and an amen dment of Count One (in case 0346) that was reduced from a second-degree felony (carrying a mandatory prison term up to eight years) to a third-degree felo ny (carrying a nonmandatory prison term of up to 36 months). (Case No. CR 2019 0 247, Doc. Nos. 57, 58); (Case No. CR 2019 0346, Doc. No. 29); (Nov. 21, 2019 T r. at 3-6, 11, 76- 82, 84-88, Case No. CR 2019 0247, Doc. No. 91). The record is clear that the trialCase Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-23- court engaged in an extensive discussion in open court as to Re eder’s understanding of his nonmerger stipulation. (Nov. 21, 2019 Tr. at 19-24, Cas e No. CR 2019 0247, Doc. No. 91). Moreover, Reeder was free to reject the negotiat ed plea agreement at any point during his change-of-plea hearing. See State v. Booker , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101886, 2015-Ohio-2515, ¶ 15. Nevertheless, after the nonmerger explanation by defense counsel and the trial court, Reeder ackn owledged he understood his nonmerger stipulation, and thereafter entered hi s guilty pleas. (Nov. 21, 2019 Tr. at 25, 79, Case No. CR 2019 0247, Doc. No. 91). T rial counsel noted at the change-of-plea hearing that the decision to enter a nonm erger stipulation resulted from the “global resolution” of all three cases. ( Id. at 22). See State v. Knight , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109302, 2021-Ohio-3674, ¶ 49, 51. {¶40} In the instant appeal, Reeder has failed to fulfill his burden of demonstrating that trial counsel’s performance was deficient in light of the foregoing or that he has suffered prejudice in light of his ple a deal. Id. at ¶ 49, citing State v. Wright , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103823, 2016-Ohio-5248, ¶ 11, citing State v. Yonkings , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98632, 2013-Ohio-1890, ¶ 8-11. {¶41} Accordingly, Reeder’s third and fourth assignments of error are

overruled.Case Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09 and 1-21-10

-24- {¶42} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in th e particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Judgment Affirmed MILLER and SHAW, J.J., concur. /jlr