Court Opinion

ID: 9954131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 18:10:45.172109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:51.193167
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Jones, 2024-Ohio-1124.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,                                    CASE NOS. 2023-T-0054
                                                            2023-T-0055
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                  Criminal Appeals from the
        - vs -                                    Court of Common Pleas

JEREMIAH ULYSSES JONES,
                                                  Trial Court Nos. 2018 CR 00575
                 Defendant-Appellant.                              2017 CR 00790

                                            OPINION

                                       Decided: March 25, 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, (“Appellant”), Jeremiah Ulysses Jones, appeals from

the trial court’s denial of his post-sentence motions to withdraw his guilty pleas in Trumbull

County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. 2017 CR 790 and 2018 CR 575, which have

been consolidated for purposes of appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm.

        {¶2}     On January 17, 2018, the Trumbull County Grand Jury indicted appellant,

charging him with aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony, in violation of R.C.
2911.01(A)(1) and (C), with a firearm specification, pursuant to R.C. 2941.145 in Case

No. 2017 CR 790.1

       {¶3}    Appellant entered a not guilty plea at arraignment on February 12, 2018.

The $25,000 cash or surety bond set by the municipal court was continued. On July 9,

2018, appellant sought a competency evaluation, and a written motion was filed on July

13, 2018. A competency evaluation pursuant to former R.C. 2945.371(G)(3) was

ordered.2

       {¶4}    On July 31, 2018, the Trumbull County Grand Jury indicted appellant in

Case No. 2018 CR 575 and charged him with aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony,

with a firearm specification, pursuant to R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and (C) and R.C. 2941.145

(“Count 1”); aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony, with a firearm specification

pursuant to R.C. 2911.01(A)(3)&(C) and R.C. 2941.145 (“Count 2”); felonious assault, a

second-degree felony, with a firearm specification, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and

(D)(1)(a) and R.C. 2941.145 (“Count 3”); felonious assault, a second degree felony, with

a firearm specification, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and (D)(1)(a) and R.C. 2941.145

(“Count 4”); and, having weapons under disability, a third-degree felony, in violation of

R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) and (B) (“Count 5”).3

       {¶5}    On August 6, 2018, appellant entered a not guilty plea at arraignment on

the charges in Case No. 2018 CR 575. Bond was set at $250,000 cash or surety. Seven

1. This matter was originally filed in the Warren Municipal Court in Case No. 2017CRA002272 and bound
   over to the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas on December 8, 2017.
2. The former version was effective from October 12, 2016 to August 2, 2021.
3. This matter was originally filed in the Warren Municipal Court in Case No. 2018CRA001618 and bound
   over to the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas on July 6, 2018.
                                                 2

Case Nos. 2023-T-0054 and 2023-T-0055
days later, on August 13, 2018, appellant’s initial counsel filed a motion to determine

competency.

        {¶6}    On November 5, 2018, appellant’s new trial counsel sought a subsequent

competency evaluation. The following day, counsel filed a motion for leave to enter a plea

of not guilty by reason of insanity in both cases. The trial court granted the requests for a

second evaluation pursuant to former R.C. 2945.371(G)(3) and (4) on December 10,

2018.

        {¶7}   On January 30, 2019, appellant sought to employ a medical expert, Dr.

Adeyemi Marcus, MD, “for the purposes of conducting a forensic psychiatric evaluation

to determine [d]efendant’s sanity at the time of the commission of the offense.” The motion

was granted on February 5, 2019.

        {¶8}   On April 10, 2019, appellant filed a motion to sever. On April 19, 2019, the

State filed a brief in opposition and moved that the cases be joined. The trial court granted

the State’s motion on April 23, 2019.

        {¶9}   On July 22, 2019, appellant appeared with counsel, waived his rights, and

entered guilty pleas in both cases. In Case No 2017 CR 790, appellant pleaded guilty to

aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony with a firearm specification as contained in the

indictment. In Case No. 2018 CR 575, appellant pleaded guilty to an amended indictment

of Count 1: aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony, with a firearm specification, in

violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and (C) and R.C. 2941.145; Count 3: felonious assault, a

second-degree      felony,   with   a   firearm   specification,   in   violation   of   R.C.

2903.11(A)(1)&(D)(1)(a) and R.C. 2941.145); and Count 5: having weapons while under

                                             3

Case Nos. 2023-T-0054 and 2023-T-0055
disability, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) and (B). The State

agreed to dismiss the remaining counts.

        {¶10} A presentence investigation was waived in both cases. The trial court

proceeded directly to sentencing.

        {¶11} In Case No. 2017 CR 790, the trial court sentenced appellant to the jointly

recommended prison sentence of three years for the offense and ordered that sentence

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

aggregate prison term of six years. The sentence imposed in the 2017 case was ordered

to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed in Case No. 2018 CR 625.4

        {¶12} In Case No. 2018 CR 575, the trial court sentenced appellant to a prison

term of three years on each Counts 1 and 3, and a term of 24 months on Count 5 to be

served concurrently to one another. The trial court determined that the firearm

specification accompanying Counts 1 and 3 would merge for purposes of sentencing and

imposed a three-year term of imprisonment to be served prior to and consecutively to the

sentence imposed on the underlying offenses. The trial court also ordered the sentence

to be served consecutively to the sentences imposed in Trumbull County Common Pleas

Court Case Nos. 2017 CR 790 and 2018 CR 625. The total term of incarceration imposed

in each of the three cases amounts to 18 years.

        {¶13} Appellant did not file a direct appeal.

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

his motions to withdraw his guilty pleas. The State filed its opposition to the motions on

4. Appellant made a similar motion to withdraw his guilty plea in Case No. 2018-CR-625 which was also
denied by the trial court. Appellant also appealed from that entry. State v. Jones, 11th Dist. Trumbull No.
2023-T-0047, 2024-Ohio-898.
                                                    4

Case Nos. 2023-T-0054 and 2023-T-0055
July 3, 2023. The State attached the competency evaluation reports of Dr. Ronald

Yendrek, D.O. and two reports by Dr. Thomas G. Gazley, Ph.D., dated October 3, 2018

and January 16, 2019. Both Dr. Gazely and Dr. Yendrek concluded that appellant was

competent to stand trial. Dr. Gazley further concluded “with a reasonable psychological

certainty [appellant] at the time of the offenses charged in both Case No. 17 CR 790 and

in Case. No. 18 CR 575 knew the wrongfulness of his acts.” The State also attached the

entry finding appellant competent in Case No. 2018 CR 625. On July 11, 2023, the trial

court denied appellant’s motions. 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.”

       {¶15} “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

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).

       {¶16} 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.

                                              5

Case Nos. 2023-T-0054 and 2023-T-0055
        {¶17} 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.

        {¶18} Appellant argues that his guilty plea was 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 plea.5

We disagree.

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

of discretion standard. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, at paragraph two of the syllabus.

Likewise, a trial court’s decision finding a defendant 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 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-

5. This is the same argument raised by appellant in a separate case. Jones, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2023-
T-0047, 2024-Ohio-898.
                                                    6

Case Nos. 2023-T-0054 and 2023-T-0055
Ohio-4276, ¶ 35, quoting State v. Clemmons, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 95-T-5305, 1996

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

       {¶20} 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 competency findings, “‘“deference on these issues should

be given to those ‘who see and hear what goes on in the court room.”’” (citations omitted).

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.

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

in this Court, appellant attached the transcripts from two pretrial hearings and the plea

and sentencing hearings to his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The transcripts from

the pretrial hearing on May 6, 2019, indicate that appellant had retained new trial counsel.

His newest trial counsel wanted additional time to receive discovery and informed the trial

court that he believed previous counsel had aborted the competency claim. The trial court

set a pretrial for the following week.

       {¶22} On May 13, 2019, the parties reconvened and trial counsel for appellant

formally withdrew the motion to determine competency and the motion for leave to plead

not guilty by reason of insanity.

       {¶23} At the plea and sentencing hearing, the court advised appellant of his limited

appellate rights. Crim.R. 11(C)(2) provides in relevant part:

                                             7

Case Nos. 2023-T-0054 and 2023-T-0055
              In felony cases the court * * * shall not accept a plea of guilty
              * * * without first addressing the defendant personally * * * and
              doing all of the following:

              (a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea
              voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges
              and of the maximum penalty involved, and if applicable, that
              the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition
              of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.

              (b) Informing the defendant of and determining 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.

              (c) Informing the defendant and determining that the
              defendant understands that by the plea the defendant is
              waiving the 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)(a) through (c).

       {¶24} “The best way to ensure that pleas are entered knowingly and voluntarily

is to simply follow the requirements of Crim.R. 11 when deciding whether to accept a plea

agreement.” State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 29.

       {¶25} The trial court complied with these provisions. Moreover, the written plea of

guilty, signed and acknowledged by appellant, also informed appellant of his ability to

appeal, to receive appointed counsel, and to obtain transcripts at the State’s expense.

Appellant cites to no authority which requires the trial court or counsel to inform a criminal

defendant of specific items he may be entitled to appeal, such as a competency

determination, for a plea to be knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given. Moreover,

appellant has failed to argue that had he known of his ability to assign error to the

                                              8

Case Nos. 2023-T-0054 and 2023-T-0055
competency determination, appellant would not have entered a plea. Instead, he

suggests that had he known of this ability, he would have filed a direct appeal.

          {¶26} However, unlike in State v. Jones, 2024-Ohio-898, appellant’s trial counsel

withdrew the motion to determine competency in the underlying cases. Because the

motion was withdrawn, appellant waived any objection to a competency determination.

See State v. Campbell, 69 Ohio St.3d 38, 44, 1994-Ohio-492, 630 N.E.2d 339. The trial

court did not err by failing to advise appellant of the ability to appeal a competency

determination where appellant waived the argument for purposes of appeal by

withdrawing his motion.

          {¶27} Further, in his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, appellant also alleged that

he was not guilty of the charges and was not properly represented by counsel. Appellant

did not appeal his convictions despite being informed at sentencing of his limited appellate

rights.

          {¶28} Upon review of the record, Appellant’s claim does not amount to a manifest

injustice warranting withdrawal of his plea. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion

when it denied appellant’s post-sentencing motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Appellant’s

sole assignment of error is meritless.

          {¶29} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decisions of the Trumbull County

Court of Common Pleas.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

concur.

                                                9

Case Nos. 2023-T-0054 and 2023-T-0055