Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio
Case No. 13 CR 193, 13 CR 271A.
Plaintiff-Appellee Paul Gains Prosecutor Ralph M. Rivera
Defendant-Appellant Attorney Scott C. Essad
JUDGES: Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Cheryl Waite Hon. Mary
Defendant-appellant, Brandon Jackson, appeals from a Mahoning
County Common Pleas Court judgment overruling his
post-sentence motions to withdraw his guilty pleas.
Appellant's motions to withdraw his guilty pleas stemmed
from two separate criminal cases. Appellant reached a plea
agreement with plaintiff-appellee, the State of Ohio, in both
cases. In the first case (13 CR 193), appellant pleaded
guilty to one count of possession of heroin, two counts of
possession of cocaine, improper handling of a firearm in a
motor vehicle, and having weapons under a disability. And in
the second case (13 CR 271A), appellant pleaded guilty to
three counts of felonious assault, two counts of having
weapons under disability, and one count of intimidation with
a firearm specification.
The two cases proceeded to a single sentencing hearing on
July 16, 2013. In case 13 CR 193, the trial court sentenced
appellant to eight years on the possession of heroin count
and one year on each of the other four counts, to be served
concurrently, for a total sentence of eight years. In case 13
CR 271A, the court sentenced appellant to seven years on each
of the three felonious assault counts, to be served
concurrent with each other; three years on both of the having
weapons under disability counts, to be served concurrent with
each other and with the felonious assaults sentences; three
years on the intimidation count, to be served concurrent to
the other sentences; and three years on the firearm
specification, to be served consecutive to the other
sentences for a total sentence of ten years. The court
ordered the sentence from 13 CR 271A to be served consecutive
to the sentence in 13 CR 193. Thus, appellant's total
sentence for both cases was 18 years.
Appellant filed a direct appeal with this court. State v.
Jackson, 7th Dist. No. 13 MA 121, 2014-Ohio-2249.
Appellant argued his counsel was ineffective in case 13 CR
193 for withdrawing a suppression motion and that the court
erred in failing to inform him which sentence he was to serve
first. This court overruled appellant's assignments of
error and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Id. at ¶ 46.
Next, on November 3, 2014, appellant filed identical pro se
motions to withdraw his guilty pleas in both cases. He
asserted he did not enter his pleas knowingly, voluntarily,
and intelligently because his counsel misled and coerced him
into pleading guilty. He claimed the plea agreement was that
he would receive a total sentence of ten years but instead he
received a total sentence of 18 years. The state filed
responses urging the court to overrule the motions. The trial
court overruled both motions in a January 15, 2015 judgment
entry. Appellant did not appeal from this judgment entry.
On April 15, 2015, appellant once again filed identical pro
se motions to withdraw his guilty pleas in both cases. This
time appellant argued he expressed his preference to go to
trial with his counsel yet his counsel advised him to
cooperate with the state and enter a guilty plea. The state
filed responses to appellant's motions arguing appellant
was afforded full plea hearings before entering his guilty
pleas and his desire to go to trial was not a valid reason to
withdraw his pleas. The trial court overruled appellant's
motions in a June 2, 2015 judgment entry.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a motion for a delayed
appeal on July 31, 2015. This court granted appellant's
motion for delayed appeal. We also appointed counsel.
Nonetheless, appellant filed a pro se brief. In this case, we
will consider counsel's brief and appellant's pro se
Appellant's counsel now raises a single assignment of
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING
APPELLANT'S POST-SENTENCING MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY
PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING. THE APPELLANT'S MOTION CLAIMED
THAT HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL COERCED HIM TO CHANGE HIS PLEA TO
GUILTY AND THAT APPELLANT WAS LED TO BELIEVE THAT IN CHANGING
HIS PLEA, HIS SENTENCES WOULD RUN CONCURRENTLY RATHER THAN
CONSECUTIVELY. THAT CONFUSION - THE SOLE REASON FOR