Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Robert L. Tobik Cuyahoga County
Public Defender BY: Paul Kuzmins Assistant Public Defender
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor BY: Anthony Thomas Miranda Ashley B.
Kilbane Assistant County Prosecutors Justice Center
BEFORE: Boyle, P.J., S. Gallagher, J., and Laster Mays, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE
Defendant-appellant, Jaron Solomon, appeals his conviction.
He raises one assignment of error for our review:
Appellant's change of plea was not knowingly,
intelligently and voluntarily made where he pleaded guilty
with the erroneous belief that he could appeal the trial
court's ruling on a motion to suppress.
Finding no merit to his appeal, we affirm.
Procedural History and Factual Background
Solomon was indicted on two counts of aggravated robbery and
one count of felonious assault after his DNA was confirmed on
a hairbrush that was left at the scene of an aggravated
robbery that took place at a gas station on May 7, 2015.
Specifically, the hairbrush was found on the ground next to a
victim who had been shot during the course of the robbery.
The victim told a Cleveland police detective at the scene
that he believed the hairbrush belonged to the man who shot
him. The detective submitted the hairbrush for DNA testing
and later learned that Solomon's DNA was on the
hairbrush. The detective then reviewed video recordings taken
from surveillance cameras at the gas station and saw that
Solomon was indeed "on the scene." The detective
subsequently obtained a warrant for Solomon's arrest.
Solomon was later arrested when he went to the county jail to
Solomon initially pleaded not guilty to the charges and then
moved to suppress a statement that he gave to the Cleveland
police detective the day after he was arrested. The trial
court held a hearing on Solomon's motion and subsequently
denied it. That same day, Solomon withdrew his former plea of
not guilty and pleaded guilty to second-degree felonious
assault with a one- and three-year firearm specification. The
remaining charges were nolled.
The trial court merged the firearm specifications and
sentenced Solomon to three years in prison on the firearm
specification, to be served prior to and consecutive to four
years for the felonious assault charge, for a total of seven
years. The trial court further advised Solomon that he would
be subject to a mandatory three years of postrelease control
upon his release from prison. It is from this judgment that
Voluntary, Knowing, and Intelligent Plea
In his sole assignment of error, Solomon contends that his
plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently
entered into - not because the trial court did not comply
with Crim.R. 11 - but because the trial court did not inform
him that by pleading guilty, he would not be able to appeal
the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress.
At the close of the suppression hearing in this case, after
the trial court denied Solomon's motion, defense counsel
stated, "[o]bviously in light of the court's ruling,
and to preserve a record should a reviewing court look at
this, I would voice an objection to the court's decision.
But I would also ask you to allow us a few minutes to talk
prior to ...