State v. Solomon, 2017 Ohio 1357

Solomon was indicted for two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of felonious assault after his DNA was identified on a hairbrush found next to a robbery victim who had been shot.
Police matched the hairbrush DNA to Solomon and viewed surveillance video placing him at the scene; Solomon was arrested at a jail visit.
Solomon moved to suppress a statement he gave to a detective; the trial court held a hearing and denied the motion.
After the suppression ruling and a recess, Solomon withdrew his not-guilty plea and pleaded guilty to second-degree felonious assault with one- and three-year firearm specifications; remaining counts were nolled.
The court merged the firearm specifications and imposed an aggregate prison term of seven years plus three years of mandatory postrelease control.
Solomon appealed, arguing his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because he believed (erroneously) he could still appeal the denial of his suppression motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Solomon's guilty plea was involuntary because he believed he could appeal denial of his suppression motion	State: Plea was valid; defendant voluntarily pleaded guilty after being advised of rights and consequences	Solomon: Counsel’s on-the-record comment preserving a suppression objection indicates a belief he could appeal, so plea was not knowingly made	Court rejected Solomon’s claim; plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent

State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996) (defendant misled into believing she could appeal after prosecutor repeatedly referenced an appeal; plea invalidated where record preserved misunderstanding)