State v. Jordan

Citations

• 2021 Ohio 2332

Syllabus

Appellant has not demonstrated any deficiency in his plea hearing that would render his guilty plea invalid. The trial court's misstatement that a potential driver's licence suspension applied to three charges against appellant rather than two was not prejudicial where the trial court made clear that any suspensions would be concurrent and later imposed no suspension at all. The record does not reflect that appellant was confused by the trial court's addressing the charges to which he was pleading guilty as well as charges and specifications that were being dismissed. The trial court had no obligation to tell appellant that a guilty plea would waive his ability to challenge the withdrawal of his motion to suppress. The record does not portray ineffective assistance of counsel based on appellant's attorney's withdrawing his suppression motion, failing to investigate or to present any mitigating evidence at sentencing, or failing to provide appellant with full discovery or to inform him that a guilty plea would waive his ability to raise suppression issues on appeal. In imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court did not err in considering the undisputed facts underlying appellant's drug-possession convictions. Those facts established that appellant possessed drugs with the purpose of reselling them rather than using them personally. The trial court reasonably concluded that this made appellant's offenses relatively more serious and increased the need to protect the public from future crime. Judgment affirmed.