[Cite as State v. Knox, 2014-Ohio-1107.]

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO : 

: Appellate Case No. 25528 

Plaintiff-Appellee : 

: Trial Court Case No. 12-CR-273 

v. : 

: 

ALBERT KNOX, JR. : (Criminal Appeal from 

: (Common Pleas Court) 

Defendant-Appellant : 

: 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 21st day of March, 2014. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by MATTHEW T. CRAWFORD, Atty. Reg. #0070162, Montgomery 

County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, P.O. Box 972, 

301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422 

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

 

CANDI S. RAMBO, Atty. Reg. #0076627, 15 West Fourth Street, Suite 250, Dayton, Ohio 45402 

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 

HALL, J., 

{¶ 1} Albert Knox appeals from the trial court’s judgment entry revoking community 

control for a menacing-by-stalking conviction and imposing an eighteen-month prison sentence. 
2

{¶ 2} Knox advances two assignments of error. The first alleges ineffective assistance of 

counsel. The second challenges the trial court’s denial of a suppression motion prior to the 

menacing-by-stalking conviction. 

{¶ 3} The record reflects that Knox was charged with two counts of menacing by stalking 

in 2012. He subsequently moved to suppress certain statements he made. The trial court denied the 

motion after a hearing. Knox then entered a negotiated plea of guilty to one of the two counts, and the 

other count was dismissed. The trial court imposed an agreed-upon community control sanction in a 

June 12, 2012 judgment entry. Also filed on that date is a form titled “Entry Acknowledging 

Understanding of Right to Appeal” which describes Knox’s appellate rights and which he signed. 

Thereafter, Knox allegedly violated the terms of community control. The trial court held a hearing and 

found multiple violations. In a December 4, 2012 judgment entry, it revoked community control and 

imposed an eighteen-month prison sentence. This appeal followed. 

{¶ 4} In his first assignment of error, Knox contends his trial counsel rendered ineffective 

assistance by allowing him to plead guilty to one count of menacing by stalking. Knox claims the 

guilty plea waived a challenge to the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion. He argues that 

counsel should have advised him to plead no contest, thereby preserving his ability to challenge the 

suppression ruling. 

{¶ 5} Upon review, we find Knox’s argument to be barred by res judicata. The present 

appeal is from the trial court’s December 4, 2012 judgment entry revoking community control. If 

Knox wished to pursue his ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal, he should have appealed 

from the trial court’s June 12, 2012 judgment entry, which convicted him pursuant to his guilty 

plea and imposed community-control sanctions. The present appeal involves only the December 
3

4, 2012 judgment entry revoking community control. In that context, Knox cannot now argue 

ineffective assistance of counsel based on the plea. Cf. State v. Havens, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 

10CA0027, 2011-Ohio-5019, ¶ 7-9 (finding that res judicata precluded a defendant from 

challenging his guilty plea in an appeal from the revocation of community control). The first 

assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 6} In his second assignment of error, Knox claims the trial court erred in overruling 

his suppression motion. Once again, however, the trial court overruled that motion before he 

entered his guilty plea and before its June 12, 2012 judgment entry. If Knox desired to challenge 

the suppression ruling, he should have appealed from the June 12, 2012 judgment entry of 

conviction and sentence. He cannot raise the suppression issue now in the context of his appeal 

from the trial court’s revocation of community control. The second assignment of error is 

overruled. 

{¶ 7} The judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

FROELICH, P.J., and FAIN, J., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

Mathias H. Heck 

Matthew T. Crawford 

Candi S. Rambo 

Hon. Mary K. Huffman