[Cite as State v. Hammond, 2016-Ohio-971.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WOOD COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-15-008
Appellee Trial Court No. 13 CR 066
v.
Robert Hammond DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: March 11, 2016
*****
Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, Gwen K. Howe-Gebers
and David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.
*****
JENSEN, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Robert Hammond, appeals a Wood County Common Pleas Court
decision denying his motion to suppress evidence. Finding Hammond has waived his
right to assert this appeal, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Upon indictment, appellant entered not guilty pleas to one count of
possession of cocaine and one count of trafficking in cocaine, both felonies of the first
degree. A motion to suppress evidence was filed, and upon hearing, denied by the trial
court.
{¶ 3} On November 17, 2014, Hammond entered a plea of guilty to one count of
possession of cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(4)(c), a felony of the third degree.
He was sentenced to 18 months in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Corrections, fined $5000.00, his driver’s license was suspended for three years, and he
was ordered to pay costs of prosecution.
{¶ 4} Hammond now appeals and asserts a single assignment of error for our
review:
The trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress in
violation of Appellant’s right to be free from unlawful search and seizures
under the Fourth Amendment of the United State Constitution and Article I,
Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution.
{¶ 5} In his sole assignment of error, Hammond contends that the trial court erred
when it denied his motion to suppress evidence. In response, the state cites State v.
Moldonado, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-03-1166, 2004-Ohio-3001, for the proposition that a
plea of guilty bars Hammond from challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to
suppress. We agree.
2.
{¶ 6} A guilty plea is a “complete admission of the defendant’s guilt.” Crim.R.
11(B)(1). In Moldonado, we explained that a “defendant who enters a guilty plea while
represented by competent counsel waives any non-jurisdictional defects in earlier stages
of proceedings, including any alleged defects relating to a trial court’s denial of a motion
to suppress.” Id. at ¶ 6.
{¶ 7} Here, there is no evidence or argument presented that Hammond was not
represented by competent counsel when he entered a plea of guilty to the amended
indictment. His guilty plea constitutes a waiver of alleged errors by the trail court in not
suppressing evidence. Hammond’s sole assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 8} The judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
The costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant under App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J.
_______________________________
James D. Jensen, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
3.
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.
4.