[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
