FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR-2016-04-1091-A
D. MILLS, pro se, Appellant.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
J. CARR, JUDGE.
Defendant-Appellant Phil Mills appeals, pro se, from the
judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas denying
his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This Court affirms.
In 2016, following a traffic stop, Mills was indicted on one
count of having weapons while under disability, one count of
carrying concealed weapons, and one count of improperly
handling firearms in a motor vehicle. Trial counsel filed a
motion to suppress which was denied following a hearing.
Thereafter, Mills entered a written plea of guilty to having
weapons while under disability and improperly handling a
firearm in a motor vehicle. The third charge was dismissed.
The trial court merged the two remaining counts and Mills was
sentenced to a term of 18 months on the offense of having
weapons while under disability. The judgment entry was
journalized August 14, 2017.
Mills did not file a direct appeal. However, in July 2018,
Mills filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea based upon
ineffective assistance of counsel and requested a hearing.
Mills attached an affidavit to his motion and to his reply.
In his affidavit, Mills averred that at "no point since
[his] suppression hearing did [his] attorney make [him] aware
that [he] was able to appeal [his] suppression hearing. Also,
[he] was not made aware by [his] attorney at [his] plea and
sentencing hearing that a guilty plea wa[i]ved [his] right to
appeal ([his] suppression hearing) in a higher court. Only
until [he] was admitted to [prison] was [he] aware of the
option of entering a no-contest plea, which would've
reserved [his] right to appeal [his] suppression
hearing." In addition, Mills submitted, inter alia,
transcripts of the suppression, plea, and sentencing
hearings. The State opposed the motion. Ultimately, the trial
court denied Mills' motion without a hearing.
Mills then filed a motion for a delayed appeal, which this
Court granted. Mills appears pro se and raises three
assignments of error, which will be addressed together to
facilitate our discussion.
OF ERROR I
TRIAL COURT ABUSED [ITS] DISCRETION WHEN DETERMINING IF
APPELLANT ENTERED HIS GUILTY PLEA KNOWINGLY, ...