[Cite as State v. Jordan, 2015-Ohio-4354.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

ROBERT E. JORDAN, JR. 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 27690 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE No. CR 14 06 1798A 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: October 21, 2015 

 

CARR, Presiding Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant, Robert Jordan, Jr., appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court 

of Common Pleas. This Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} On June 30, 2014, the Summit County Grand Jury indicted Jordan and several codefendants on a myriad of charges related to the murder of Shawn Dotson. After pleading not 

guilty to the charges at arraignment, Jordan filed a motion to sever his trial from one of his codefendants. The trial court denied the motion. Jordan subsequently appeared for a change-ofplea hearing and pleaded guilty to one count of murder with a firearm specification as well as 

one count of aggravated burglary. The remaining charges were dismissed pursuant to the 

agreement. In accordance with the joint recommendation by the parties in the plea agreement, 

the trial court sentenced Jordan to a total sentence of 18 years to life. 
2 

 

{¶3} On February 20, 2015, Jordan filed a motion in this Court for leave to file a 

delayed appeal. This Court granted the motion. Jordan raises one assignment of error. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

APPELLANT’S PLEA WAS NOT KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND 

VOLUNTARY AS THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY NOTIFY 

APPELLANT THAT HE WAS WAIVING HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL. 

{¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Jordan contends that his plea was not knowing, 

intelligent, and voluntary. Jordan argues that while the trial court generally informed him that he 

was waiving his right to appeal, it committed reversible error by failing to inform him at the plea 

colloquy that he was also waiving his right to appeal the trial court’s ruling on pretrial motions. 

Jordan cites Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b) in support of the proposition that a trial court must address the 

waiver of pretrial motions at a plea colloquy. This Court disagrees. 

{¶5} “When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be made 

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of 

the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution.” 

(Internal quotations and citations omitted.) State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472, 2011-Ohio4130, ¶ 9. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) compels a trial court to determine that “the defendant is making 

the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty 

involved[.]” Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b), which Jordan cites in support of his argument, requires the 

trial court to “[i]nform[] the defendant of and determin[e] that the defendant understands the 

effect of the plea of guilty or no contest, and that the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may 

proceed with judgment and sentence[.]” Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and 11(C)(2)(b) deal with 

nonconstitutional notifications, and substantial compliance by a trial court during a plea colloquy 
3 

 

is sufficient. State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, ¶ 15. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) 

requires the trial court to inform a criminal defendant that a plea waives the defendant’s 

constitutional rights “to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory 

process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant’s favor, and to require the state to prove the 

defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be 

compelled to testify against himself or herself.” Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c); Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200, at 

syllabus. Because Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) deals with the waiver of constitutional rights, strict 

compliance with the rule is required. Veney at ¶ 18. 

{¶6} “[A] guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events that preceded it in the 

criminal process; thus, a defendant, who admits his guilt, waives the right to challenge the 

propriety of any action taken by a trial court or trial counsel prior to that point in the proceedings 

unless it affected the knowing and voluntary character of the plea.” State v. Franco, 9th Dist. 

Medina No. 07CA0090-M, 2008-Ohio-4651, ¶ 28, quoting State v. Gegia, 157 Ohio App.3d 112, 

2004-Ohio-2124, ¶ 18 (9th Dist.). While Jordan argues that the trial court failed to adequately 

address the waiver of his right to appeal at the plea colloquy, Jordan has cited no authority in 

support of the proposition that trial court ran afoul of Crim.R. 11(C) by failing to specifically 

address the waiver of appellate rights with respect to pretrial motions. Moreover, this Court has 

held that “[t]he trial court’s duty to advise a defendant of his right to appeal[] does not arise until 

sentencing and, therefore, has no effect upon whether the defendant’s guilty plea was entered 

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.” State v. Meredith, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25198, 2011-

Ohio-1517, ¶ 6, citing State v. Atkinson, 9th Dist. Medina No. 05CA0079-M, 2006-Ohio-5806, ¶ 

22. Accordingly, the assignment of error is overruled. 
4 

 

III. 

{¶7} Jordan’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County 

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 DONNA J. CARR 

 FOR THE COURT 

MOORE, J. 

SCHAFER, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

ALAN M. MEDVICK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.