STATE OF OHIO v. DARIN BRUSITER
No. 98614
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
April 11, 2013
[Cite as State v. Brusiter, 2013-Ohio-1445.]
BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, J., Jones, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Jeffrey Froude
P.O. Box 771112
Lakewood, Ohio 44107
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Mary H. McGrath
Saleh S. Awadallah
Assistant County Prosecutors
The Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{1} Darin Brusiter appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, we affirm.
{2} Brusiter was indicted on April 29, 2011, and charged with two counts of aggravated murder with murder for hire specifications, kidnapping, insurance fraud and tampering with evidence. Brusiter pled not guilty to the indictment.
{3} On September 28, 2011, Brusiter filed a motion to suppress all statements made by him tо police, asserting that said statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The trial court denied the motion to suppress on May 2, 2012. Following the denial of the motion to suppress, Brusiter, pursuant to a plea agrеement with the state, pled guilty to one count of aggravated murder with a three-year firearm specifiсation. The attached murder for hire specification was deleted along with the one- and six-year firеarm specifications. The second count of aggravated murder was nolled. Brusiter also pled guilty to kidnаpping, insurance fraud and tampering with evidence. The trial court imposed a prison sentence of 30 years to life on the aggravated murder charge to run consecutive to the attached three-yеar firearm specification. The court further sentenced Brusiter to prison terms of 10 years for kidnapрing,1 18 months for insurance fraud and 3 years for
{4} Brusiter filed a motion for a delayed appeal that this court granted on July 20, 2012. Brusiter‘s appeal presents the following sole assignment of error:
“The trial court erred in overruling defendant‘s motion to suppress.”
{5} The state contends that by virtue of his pleа of guilty, Brusiter has waived his right to appeal the trial court‘s denial of his motion to suppress. We agree. “[W]hen a defendant enters a guilty plea as part of a plea bargain, he waives all appeаlable errors that may have occurred at trial, unless such errors are shown to have precluded thе defendant from entering a knowing and voluntary plea.” State v. Milczewski, 8th Dist. No. 97138, 2012-Ohio-1743, ¶ 5, citing State v. Kelley, 57 Ohio St.3d 127, 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991). This includes the denial of a motion to suppress. State v. Ramsey, 3d Dist. No. 9-10-55, 2012-Ohio-134, ¶ 15; State v. Wheeler, 2d Dist. No. 24112, 2011-Ohio-3423, ¶ 3; State v. Bump, 11th Dist. No. 2010-A-0028, 2011-Ohio-6687, ¶ 42-43; State v. Elliott, 86 Ohio App.3d 792, 795, 621 N.E.2d 1272 (12th Dist.1993).
{6} Brusiter concedes that the trial court‘s plea сolloquy complied with
{7} We have previously held that where a trial court carries out the mandates of
{8} Consistent with our abоve authority, Ohio courts, when confronted with defendants who have pled guilty to aggravated murder and subsequently sought to appeal pretrial rulings, have found such arguments waived. See, e.g., Ohio v. Shipp, 1st Dist. Nos. C-850356, C-850396, B-844056, 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 6581 (Apr. 30, 1986); State v. Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321, 2004-Ohio-3167, 810 N.E.2d 927, ¶ 77-78. These cases have not recognized a
{9} The transcript of Brusiter‘s plea hearing reveals that he acknowledged that he understood the rights he was waiving by entеring his guilty plea and that he understood the potential sentences that could be imposed if he enterеd a guilty plea. Consequently, the record on appeal affirmatively demonstrates that appellant entered a voluntary, knowing and intelligent guilty plea as required by
{10} We, therefore, overrule Brusiter‘s sole assignment of error and affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds fоr this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said lower court to carry this judgmеnt into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR