Court Opinion

ID: 9392658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 18:07:30.406129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:47.596678
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Jones, 2023-Ohio-1512.]

                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                  SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                        GREENE COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO                                         :
                                                       :
       Appellee                                        :   C.A. Nos. 2022-CA-47; 2022-CA-48
                                                       :
 v.                                                    :   Trial Court Case Nos. 2020 CR 0516;
                                                       :   2022 CR 0506
 JERRICO JONES                                         :
                                                       :   (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
       Appellant                                       :   Court)
                                                       :

                                                 ...........

                                                 OPINION

                                            Rendered on May 5, 2023

                                                 ...........

MEGAN A. HAMMOND, Attorney for Appellee

KRISTIN L. ARNOLD, Attorney for Appellant

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

LEWIS, J.

        {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Jerrico Jones appeals from his convictions in the

Greene County Common Pleas Court following his guilty pleas to various felony offenses

in two separate cases, which have been consolidated on appeal. For the following

reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in each case.
                                                                                        -2-

         I.   Facts and Procedural History

      {¶ 2} On July 31, 2020, Jones was indicted in Greene C.P. No. 2020 CR 0506 for

one count of aggravated trafficking in drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), a felony

of the first degree; one count of aggravated possession of drugs, a violation of R.C.

2925.11(A), a felony of the second degree; one count of trafficking in marijuana, in

violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), a felony of the second degree; and one count of

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

The indictment also included two forfeiture specifications for various money and property.

      {¶ 3} On August 7, 2020, Jones was indicted in Greene C.P. No. 2020 CR 0516

for one count of felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a felony of the

second degree, along with a three-year firearm specification and a repeat violent offender

specification; and one count of having weapons while under a disability, in violation of

R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a felony of the third degree.

      {¶ 4} On September 5, 2020, Jones filed a motion to suppress in each of these

cases. A joint hearing was held on the motions. On February 12, 2021, the trial court

overruled the motions.

      {¶ 5} On August 11, 2021, Jones entered a negotiated guilty plea in each case.

In Case No. 2020 CR 506, Jones agreed to plead guilty to one count of aggravated

possession of drugs and one count of trafficking in marijuana, both felonies of the second

degree, along with the forfeiture specifications. In Case No. 2020 CR 516, Jones agreed

to plead guilty to one count of having weapons while under a disability, a felony of the

third degree. In exchange for his guilty pleas, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining
                                                                                       -3-

counts and specifications. The parties also agreed to a mandatory indefinite sentence

of a minimum of four years in prison to a maximum of six years in prison pursuant to the

Reagan Tokes Act in Case No. 2020 CR 506 and to a sentence of 36 months in prison in

Case No. 2020 CR 516, and they agreed that the two sentences would run concurrently.

Immediately following Jones’ pleas, the trial court accepted his pleas, found him guilty,

and proceeded directly to sentencing. In accordance with the plea agreements, Jones

was sentenced in Case No. 2020 CR 506 to a mandatory indefinite sentence of a

minimum of four years to a maximum of six years on each offense to run concurrently to

each other and concurrently to the sentence in Case No. 2020 CR 516. Likewise, Jones

was sentenced to the agreed 36 months in prison in Case No. 2020 CR 516, to be served

concurrently with the sentence in Case No. 2020 CR 506.

      {¶ 6} Jones timely appealed.

      {¶ 7} Jones raises the following three assignments of error on appeal:

      1. THE     TRIAL     COURT      ERRED     IN    DENYING      DEFENDANT-

          APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

      2. PLAIN ERROR OCCURRED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO

          RULE ON ALL ISSUES OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

      3. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY FAILING TO BRING THE

          INCOMPLETE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS TO THE

          COURT’S ATTENTION.

      {¶ 8} Because the three assignments of error are interrelated, we will address

them together.   Jones’ first argument concerns the issues raised in the motion to
                                                                                           -4-

suppress and why the evidence should have been suppressed. His second argument

alleges that the trial court failed to resolve two of the three issues raised in the motion to

suppress, which constitutes plain error and necessitates reversal.           In Jones’ third

assignment of error, he claims his counsel was ineffective for allowing him to plead guilty

without the benefit of the trial court’s decision on the undecided issues remaining from his

motion to suppress. We find no merit to any of these arguments.

        {¶ 9} Contrary to Jones’ assertions, a review of the record demonstrates that the

trial court did issue a decision on all the arguments raised in Jones’ motions. Case Nos.

2020 CR 506 and 2020 CR 516 were consolidated for the motion to suppress hearing, in

addition to being consolidated with Jones’ co-defendant, Brian Jones, who was charged

in Case No. 2020 CR 517. In Case Nos. 2020 CR 516 and 2020 CR 517, which were

based on the same set of facts and circumstances, the defendants challenged eyewitness

identification. The trial court overruled that issue in a decision issued on February 12,

2021.

        {¶ 10} Case no. 2020 CR 506, however, was based on a different set of facts and

circumstances that only applied to Jones. In that case, Jones challenged the alleged

illegal police entry into his home and the subsequent search warrant obtained. In a

separate decision filed only in Case No. 2020 CR 506 on February 12, 2021, the trial

court overruled the entirety of the issues raised in the motion to suppress. Therefore, at

the time Jones entered his guilty pleas on August 11, 2021, he was fully aware of the trial

court’s decisions overruling all of the issues raised in his motions.

        {¶ 11} Because the trial court had rendered decisions on all of the matters Jones
                                                                                           -5-

had raised, Jones’ second assignment of error fails. Likewise, because the decisions

were issued prior to Jones’ entering his guilty pleas, there is no basis for his ineffective

assistance of counsel claim, and his third assignment of error fails. Finally, we agree

with the State that by pleading guilty, Jones waived his right to claim any error with respect

to the trial court's denial of his motions to suppress evidence.

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

11(B)(1). Unlike a plea of no contest, “a guilty plea waives all appealable errors that may

have occurred in the trial court, including the denial of a motion to suppress, unless such

errors precluded [the defendant] from knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entering his

guilty plea.” State v. Wheeler, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24112, 2011-Ohio-3423, ¶ 3.

       {¶ 13} Here, Jones’ only argument that could be construed as his not having

entered his pleas knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily was the allegation that he had

entered his pleas without the benefit of the court’s decision on all the issues raised in his

motions to suppress. But the trial court’s decisions were issued several months prior to

his guilty pleas. Moreover, there is no indication in the record that his guilty pleas were

anything less than knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Consequently, by

pleading guilty, Jones waived his right to challenge the trial court’s denial of his motions

to suppress, and his first assignment of error is overruled.

         II.   Conclusion

       {¶ 14} Having overruled all of Jones’ assignments of error, the judgments of the

trial court are affirmed.
                                                -6-

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

WELBAUM, P.J. and EPLEY, J., concur.