Court Opinion

ID: 9949522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 20:10:12.921137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:36.219370
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Jones, 2024-Ohio-898.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                     CASE NO. 2023-T-0047

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                   Criminal Appeal from the
        - vs -                                     Court of Common Pleas

JEREMIAH ULYSSES JONES,
                                                   Trial Court No. 2018 CR 00625
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                            OPINION

                                       Decided: March 11, 2024
                                         Judgment: Affirmed

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant
Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH
44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Michael A. Partlow, P.O. Box 1562, Stow, OH 44224 (For Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

        {¶1}     Defendant-appellant, Jeremiah Ulysses Jones (“appellant”), appeals from

the trial court’s denial of his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. For the

following reasons, we affirm.

        {¶2}     On August 27, 2018, the Trumbull County Grand Jury indicted appellant,

charging him with two counts of aggravated robbery, first-degree felonies, in violation of
R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and (C) and R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) and (C), Counts One and Two

respectively, with accompanying firearm specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.145.1

       {¶3}    Appellant entered not guilty pleas at arraignment on September 4, 2018.

The $150,000 cash or surety bond set by the municipal court was continued.                        On

September 19, 2018, appellant filed a motion to determine competency. The trial court

scheduled a competency hearing for October 24, 2018. After several continuances, the

matter was set on November 21, 2018. On November 29, 2018, the trial court granted

appellant’s request for an independent evaluation and appointed Ronald Yendrek, D.O.

(“Dr. Yendrek”).

       {¶4}    The competency hearing was ultimately held on January 16, 2019, with the

State, appellant, and defense counsel present. The competency reports of Dr. Thomas

Gazley, Ph.D. and Dr. Yendrek, D.O. were submitted as Joint Exhibits 1 and 2,

respectively. After the hearing, on January 25, 2019, the trial court concluded: “based on

the competency reports and the stipulations made, the Court finds by a preponderance

of the evidence, that the Defendant is capable of understanding the nature and objections

of the proceedings against him and of assisting in his own defense.”

       {¶5}    On April 19, 2019, newly retained defense counsel filed his notice of

appearance. On June 17, 2019, appellant appeared with counsel, waived his rights, and

entered guilty pleas to the charges contained in the indictment.

       {¶6}    The State stipulated that the two counts of aggravated robbery merged for

purposes of sentencing and elected to proceed on Count Two, aggravated robbery, a

1. This matter was originally filed in the Warren Municipal Court in Case No. 2018CRA001694 and bound
over to the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas on July 18, 2018.
                                                  2

Case No. 2023-T-0047
first-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) and (C). The State and appellant

agreed to a jointly recommended prison sentence of three years on Count Two, to be

served consecutively to a three-year prison term on the firearm specification, for an

aggregate prison term of six years. The parties further agreed that the six-year prison

term imposed in this case would be served consecutively to the sentences imposed in

Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. 2017 CR 00790 and 2018 CR

00575, for a total prison term of 18 years. Appellant waived a presentence investigation.

      {¶7}   The trial court proceeded directly to sentencing and sentenced appellant to

the jointly recommended prison sentence of three years on Count Two, to be served

consecutively to a three-year prison term on the firearm specification, for an aggregate

prison term of six years. The sentencing entry did not mention the sentences imposed in

the unrelated cases. The appellant did not file a direct appeal.

      {¶8}   On June 7, 2023, nearly four years after appellant was sentenced, he filed

a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. On June 12, 2023, the trial court denied his motion.

Appellant now appeals and raises a single assignment of error: “[t]he trial court erred in

denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas as a manifest injustice has

occurred.”

      {¶9}   “A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before

sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set

aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea.”

Crim.R. 32.1. “A defendant who seeks to withdraw a plea of guilty after the imposition of

sentence has the burden of establishing the existence of manifest injustice.” State v.

Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph one of the syllabus. The

                                            3

Case No. 2023-T-0047
Supreme Court of Ohio has defined “manifest injustice” as “a clear or openly unjust act.”

State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203, 208, 699 N.E.2d 83 (1998).

       {¶10} It is well-established that a post-sentence withdrawal “is allowable only in

extraordinary cases.”     Smith at 264.     Motions made pursuant to Crim.R.32.1 are

“addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the good faith, credibility and

weight of the movant’s assertions in support of the motion are matters to be resolved by

that court.” Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.

       {¶11} As this court has held, “‘a trial court need not hold an evidentiary hearing on

a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea if the record indicates the movant is not

entitled to relief and the movant has failed to submit evidentiary documents sufficient to

demonstrate a manifest injustice.’” State v. Caskey, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2010-L-014,

2010-Ohio-4697, ¶ 11, quoting State v. Mays, 174 Ohio App.3d 681, 2008-Ohio-128, 884

N.E.2d 607, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.). See also State v. Pena, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2022-T-0103,

2023-Ohio-2354, ¶ 23.

       {¶12} Appellant argues that his guilty pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily made because he was not advised that he could appeal the trial court’s

decision on competency. Appellant asserts he should be permitted to withdraw his pleas.

We disagree.

       {¶13} As noted above, this court reviews a trial court’s decision under an abuse

of discretion standard. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d at paragraph two of the syllabus. Likewise,

a trial court’s decision finding that a defendant is competent to stand trial is also reviewed

for an abuse of discretion. “[T]he Supreme Court of Ohio has long held that a trial court

does not abuse its discretion in finding a defendant competent where its findings of

                                              4

Case No. 2023-T-0047
competency are supported by some reliable, credible evidence.” State v. Spurrier, 11th

Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-069, 2021-Ohio-1061, ¶ 42, citing State v. Vrabel, 99 Ohio St.3d

184, 2003-Ohio-3193, 790 N.E.2d 303, ¶ 33. “‘An appellate court will affirm a trial court's

finding of competency when the record contains some competent, credible evidence

supporting such a finding.’” State v. Spencer, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2017-T-0117, 2018-

Ohio-4276, ¶ 35, quoting State v. Clemmons, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 95-T-5305, 1996

WL 760933, *3 (Dec. 20, 1996).

        {¶14} An abuse of discretion is the trial court’s “‘failure to exercise sound,

reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” State v. Beechler, 2d Dist. Clark No. 09-CA-54,

2010-Ohio-1900, ¶ 62, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 11 (8th Ed.2004). This court has

also noted that, in relation to competence findings, “‘“deference on these issues should

be given to those ‘who see and hear what goes on in the court room.”’” State v. Peters,

11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2022-T-0106, 2023-Ohio-2028, ¶ 20, appeal not accepted, 171

Ohio St.3d 1506, 2023-Ohio-3968, 220 N.E.3d 836, quoting Spurrier at ¶ 42, quoting

Vrabel at ¶ 33.

        {¶15} While certified copies of the transcripts of proceedings have not been filed

in this court, appellant attached the transcripts from the competency hearing and the plea

and sentencing hearing to his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.2 The transcripts from

the competency hearing illustrate that a hearing was held and that both reports from the

evaluations, admitted as joint exhibits, indicated that appellant was competent to stand

trial. Defense counsel stipulated to the findings in both reports.      As such, there is

1. The copies are not signed by the court reporter.
                                                      5

Case No. 2023-T-0047
competent credible evidence supporting the trial court’s decision finding that appellant

was competent to stand trial.

       {¶16} Further, at the plea hearing, the court advised appellant of his limited

appellate rights and informed him of his ability to appeal, to receive appointed counsel,

and to obtain transcripts at the State’s expense. The foregoing provisions are also

contained in the written plea signed and acknowledged by appellant. Appellant cites no

authority that requires the trial court or counsel to inform a criminal defendant during a

guilty plea of the specific items he may be entitled to appeal in order for the plea to be

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given.

       {¶17} Moreover, appellant has failed to argue that had he known of his ability to

assign error to the competency determination, he would not have entered a plea. Instead,

he suggests that had he known of this ability, he would have appealed. Such a claim

does not amount to a manifest injustice warranting withdrawal of his pleas. Thus, the trial

court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s post-sentence motion to

withdraw his guilty pleas.

       {¶18} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Trumbull County

Court of Common Pleas.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

                                              6

Case No. 2023-T-0047