[Cite as State v. Hammond, 2016-Ohio-971.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 WOOD COUNTY 

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-15-008 

 

 Appellee Trial Court No. 13 CR 066 

v. 

Robert Hammond DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: March 11, 2016 

* * * * * 

 Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, Gwen K. Howe-Gebers 

 and David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee. 

 Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant. 

* * * * * 

JENSEN, P.J. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, Robert Hammond, appeals a Wood County Common Pleas Court 

decision denying his motion to suppress evidence. Finding Hammond has waived his 

right to assert this appeal, we affirm. 
2. 

{¶ 2} Upon indictment, appellant entered not guilty pleas to one count of 

possession of cocaine and one count of trafficking in cocaine, both felonies of the first 

degree. A motion to suppress evidence was filed, and upon hearing, denied by the trial 

court. 

{¶ 3} On November 17, 2014, Hammond entered a plea of guilty to one count of 

possession of cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(4)(c), a felony of the third degree. 

He was sentenced to 18 months in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 

Corrections, fined $5000.00, his driver’s license was suspended for three years, and he 

was ordered to pay costs of prosecution. 

{¶ 4} Hammond now appeals and asserts a single assignment of error for our 

review: 

The trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress in 

violation of Appellant’s right to be free from unlawful search and seizures 

under the Fourth Amendment of the United State Constitution and Article I, 

Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. 

{¶ 5} In his sole assignment of error, Hammond contends that the trial court erred 

when it denied his motion to suppress evidence. In response, the state cites State v. 

Moldonado, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-03-1166, 2004-Ohio-3001, for the proposition that a 

plea of guilty bars Hammond from challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to 

suppress. We agree. 
3. 

{¶ 6} A guilty plea is a “complete admission of the defendant’s guilt.” Crim.R. 

11(B)(1). In Moldonado, we explained that a “defendant who enters a guilty plea while 

represented by competent counsel waives any non-jurisdictional defects in earlier stages 

of proceedings, including any alleged defects relating to a trial court’s denial of a motion 

to suppress.” Id. at ¶ 6. 

{¶ 7} Here, there is no evidence or argument presented that Hammond was not 

represented by competent counsel when he entered a plea of guilty to the amended 

indictment. His guilty plea constitutes a waiver of alleged errors by the trail court in not 

suppressing evidence. Hammond’s sole assignment of error is not well-taken. 

{¶ 8} The judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

The costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant under App.R. 24. 

Judgment affirmed. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. 

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ 

JUDGE 

Arlene Singer, J. 

_______________________________ 

James D. Jensen, P.J. JUDGE 

CONCUR. 

_______________________________ 

JUDGE 
4. 

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of 

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported 

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: 

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.