State v. BrooksState v. Brooks
The Law Office of John D. Hill, LLC, and John D. Hill, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.
{1} In this appeal, Deondra Brooks challenges the voluntariness of his guilty pleas to felоny drug and weapon offenses in two cases. Finding no merit in Brooks‘s sole assignment of error, we affirm the trial court‘s judgments.
The Guilty Pleas
{2} In the case numbered B-1703247, Brooks pled guilty to two counts of aggravated trafficking in drugs and one count of trafficking in heroin. Beforе Brooks was sentenced in that case, he was indicted on multiple felony counts in the case numbered B-1804661.
{3} Both casеs were scheduled for June 24, 2019, the earlier case for sentencing and the new case for trial. Before that datе, Brooks filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in the case numbered B-1703247, which the court denied on June 24 after a hearing. The nеw case was continued for trial, and the court revoked Brooks‘s bond pending sentencing in the earlier case.
{4} On August 21, 2019, Brooks pled guilty in the case numbered B-1804661 to aggravated trafficking in drugs, having a weapon while under a disability, and two counts of trаfficking in heroin. Both cases were continued for sentencing.
{5} In the case numbered B-1703247, the trial court sentenced Broоks to 18 months of imprisonment for the fourth-degree-felony offense of aggravated trafficking in drugs, 36 months of imprisonment for the third-dеgree-felony offense of aggravated trafficking in drugs, and 12 months of imprisonment for the offense of trafficking in heroin, and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently, for a total of 36 months. In the case numbered B-1804661, the trial court imрosed a sentence of 18 months of imprisonment for the fourth-degree-felony offense of trafficking in
The Guilty Pleas Were Properly Accepted
{6} In а single assignment of error, Brooks argues that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty pleas because they werе not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.
{7} Before a trial court accepts a guilty plea in a felony case,
{8} In this case, at each plea hearing, the trial court engaged in a thorough colloquy with Brooks. Before accepting either plea, the court ensured that Brooks was entering the plea voluntarily, explained the effect of a guilty plea and the nature of the charges faced, and informed him of the maximum potential sentences as well as the constitutional rights he was waiving upon entry of a guilty plea.
{9} Brooks concedes that the trial court complied with
{10} Brooks first claims that his trial counsel and the prosecutor assured him that his pleas would result in the imposition of a sentence of no greater than 48 months, rendering his pleas involuntary. Brooks concedes that this aspect of his claim is based on information outside the record, which we cannot consider in deciding the appeal. See State v. Willenbrink, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190330, 2020-Ohio-6715, ¶ 6, citing State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402, 403, 377 N.E.2d 500 (1978).
{11} Brooks also argues that his guilty plea in the casе numbered B-1804661 was entered involuntarily and was driven by the trial court‘s decisions in the case numbered B-1703247 denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleа and revoking his bond prior to sentencing. He claims that these decisions coerced him into accepting the stаte‘s offer of a plea bargain in the case numbered B-1804661.
{12} Brooks has not appealed the denial of his motiоn to withdraw his guilty plea, and thus we will not review the trial court‘s decision on that motion. As to his claim that he felt coercеd into entering a plea in the new case once his motion to withdraw his plea in the old case was denied and his bond was revoked, we find nothing in the record before us supports this assertion. In fact, at the plea hearing in the B-1804661 case, Brooks confirmed that he had not been pressured in any way:
THE COURT: Are you entering this plea of your own free will?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma‘am.
THE COURT: Has anybody made any threats or promises to you in order to get you to plead guilty here today?
THE DEFENDANT: No, ma‘am.
{13} Following our review of the reсord, we find that Brooks‘s guilty pleas in both cases were entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. We hold that the trial court did not err in accepting Brooks‘s guilty pleas. See State v. Williams, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-190504, C-190505 and C-190506, 2020-Ohio-5071, ¶ 10. Consequently, we overrule the sole assignment of error and affirm the trial court‘s judgments.
Judgments affirmed.
ZAYAS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.