[Cite as State v. Hicks,
2025-Ohio-3068.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 114532
v. :
JORDAN HICKS, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 28, 2025
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-23-684821-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Brad Meyer, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
P. Andrew Baker, for appellant.
WILLIAM A. KLATT, J.:
Defendant-appellant Jordan Hicks (“Hicks”) appeals from his
convictions following a guilty plea.1 For the following reasons, we affirm Hicks’s
convictions.
Factual and Procedural History
This case arose from Hicks’s alleged involvement with an automobile
theft ring in 2022 and 2023. On October 3, 2023, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury
indicted Hicks and seven codefendants in a 224-count indictment. The indictment
charged Hicks with 80 counts that included, but were not limited to, murder,
aggravated murder, attempted murder, felonious assault, grand theft, arson,
receiving stolen property, and numerous firearm specifications. The underlying
facts are not relevant to the instant appeal.
On October 6, 2023, Hicks pleaded not guilty to the indictment and
the trial court assigned two attorneys to represent Hicks. On July 25, 2024, Hicks
filed, pro se, a handwritten pleading titled “Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw
Counsel.” The motion sought to remove Hicks’s appointed counsel because of their
“ineffectiveness” and “negligence of duty.” Hicks attached to the motion a
memorandum that stated since his incarceration on August 14, 2023, he had neither
discussed with his counsel the bill of particulars filed against him nor received from
counsel a physical copy of the pleading. Hicks stated he was not receiving “adequate
1 This is a companion case to the appeal in 8th District Cuyahoga No. 114449.
legal representation” and he was dissatisfied with his attorneys’ “lack of
communication and poor performance.”
On August 1, 2024, the trial court conducted a hearing on Hicks’s
motion at which Hicks and defense counsel stated their positions relative to the
issues raised in the motion. Hicks stated the following:
Um, I would like to disqualify both counsel on my behalf because [the
attorneys] lack[] the services needed and failed multiple times to
accomplish anything when asked. They both never answer my
questions or responses and are always short in time. Their response is
always like they ignore what I say.
And during the visits I’m always getting misleading information
pertaining to my case and they don’t know anything about what’s going
on.
And I asked for my motion for discovery plenty of times and they
constantly ignore my request. So I don’t know what evidence they have
against me nor what I’m up against. So I just don’t feel comfortable
going to trial with the two [attorneys] because I don’t feel they’re on my
side to help fight for my innocence and freedom and also to prepare for
trial.
So I ask the court to please move to grant this motion.
Tr. 64-65.
The assistant prosecuting attorney confirmed that he had provided all
outstanding discovery to defense counsel including police reports, DNA reports, and
digital evidence. One defense counsel spoke on behalf of himself and co-counsel,
and the following exchange took place at the hearing:
COURT: You have heard what Mr. Hicks’s complaints are. Do you
have anything to say on the record on whether they’re true, false or
maybe a combination of both?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: I think they’re probably a combination of both,
your Honor. Obviously there’s a bunch of opinions in there which are
— which he is entitled to have.
THE COURT: I’m sorry to interrupt you. I asked you to say something
and I interrupted you right away. But what I want to know is this.
Have you discussed or summarized the discovery that you’ve received
with Mr. Hicks?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes, your Honor. There is a specific allegation
that we haven’t turned over copies of discovery. I generally don’t do
that. Some of the discovery is “counsel only.” Some of the discovery
is digital and he wouldn’t have any way to access that at the county
jail. And when people are at the county jail, I generally don’t give even
copies of police reports that aren’t counsel only just because I’m
always concerned about them leaving their discovery in the cell,
maybe someone else going into that cell and accessing it and then
using it against the accused. So that’s certainly 100 percent accurate
that we haven’t provided the discovery.
THE COURT: Meaning given actual copies.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Hard copies. We have reviewed the discovery
with him. We have explained it as best as we could. It is a very
complicated case so — just in regards to the amount of discovery — so
it is difficult to get succinct answers all the time. But I certainly don’t
want to dispute any feelings that he has about us because that’s
obviously what he’s entitled to think.
Tr. 66-67. The trial judge stated he would take the motion into consideration but
regardless of the ruling, trial would begin as scheduled on August 12, 2024.
On August 6, 2024, the trial court issued a journal entry that denied
Hicks’s motion to disqualify assigned counsel. On August 12, 2024, following a
Crim.R. 11 colloquy, the trial court accepted Hicks’s guilty pleas to 31 felonies and
one misdemeanor. The court sentenced Hicks, on September 10, 2024, to an
aggregate sentence of 21 years and six months in prison.
On November 7, 2024, Hicks filed a delayed notice of appeal — that
this court granted on November 25, 2024 — presenting a sole assignment of error:
“The trial court erred in denying defendant-appellant’s request for new[ly]
appointed counsel.”
Legal Analysis
Hicks argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for
new counsel. Hicks concedes the trial court conducted a hearing on his motion but
contends the elicited testimony showed he was not provided with physical copies of
discovery and his counsel failed to address the allegations of lack of communication
and the provision of misleading information. The State argues Hicks waived the
right to appeal this issue when he pleaded guilty or, alternatively, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion when it denied Hicks’s motion.
Hicks’s convictions resulted from guilty pleas following a Crim.R. 11
colloquy and an explanation by the trial court of the constitutional and
nonconstitutional rights Hicks would waive by pleading guilty.
“A plea of guilty is a complete admission of the defendant’s guilt.”
Crim.R. 11(B)(1). “By entering a guilty plea, a defendant is not simply stating that
he or she committed the discrete acts described in the indictment; he or she is
admitting guilt of a substantive crime.” State v. Albright, 2019-Ohio-1998, ¶ 36 (8th
Dist.). “‘[A] guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded
it in the criminal process.’” State v. Spates,
64 Ohio St.3d 269, 272 (1992), quoting
Tollett v. Henderson,
411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). A guilty plea waives the right to
appeal all nonjurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings, although the defendant
may contest the constitutionality of the plea itself. State v. Sims,
2018-Ohio-388,
¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Darling,
2017-Ohio-7603, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing State
v. Lewis,
2015-Ohio-5267, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.).
On appeal, Hicks’s argument relates solely to his motion to disqualify
counsel and why, substantively, the trial court should have granted the motion.
Hicks asserts that defense counsel failed to provide him with written copies of
discovery, defense counsel refused to answer his questions, and defense counsel
provided misleading information. Hicks’s assigned error does not relate to the
constitutionality of the plea itself, nor does it challenge the adequacy of the trial
court’s Crim.R. 11 colloquy. Accordingly, we find Hicks’s guilty plea waived his right
to assert his arguments on appeal and his sole assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant the costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s
conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
_____________________
WILLIAM A. KLATT, JUDGE*
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR
(*Sitting by assignment: William A. Klatt, J., retired, of the Tenth District Court
of Appeals.)
