State v. Frierson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Frierson, 2017-Ohio-4178.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 104671 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. CHINA FRIERSON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-14-591239-C and CR-16-603587 BEFORE: Stewart, P.J., S. Gallagher, J., and Jones, J. RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 8, 2017 FOR APPELLANT China Frierson, pro se Inmate No. 681-713 Lake Erie Correctional Institution P.O. Box 8000 501 Thompson Road Conneaut, OH 44030 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Christine M. Vacha Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 MELODY J. STEWART, P.J.: {¶1} In this pro se appeal, defendant-appellant China Frierson maintains that the court found him guilty without actually accepting his guilty plea. {¶2} Frierson pleaded guilty to assorted drug trafficking counts. At sentencing, he had second thoughts and told the court that if he had known that one of his codefendants was also going to plead guilty, he “never wouldn’t [sic] have pled out to them” because the drugs at issue did not belong to him. Tr. 19. The court then stated, “[s]o are you telling me you want to withdraw your plea here today?” Frierson replied in the affirmative. After some discussion about the nature of the offenses to which Frierson pleaded guilty, including the state’s agreement to nolle firearm specifications attached to the drug charges, the court told Frierson that “[w]e’ll withdraw your plea and you’ll go to trial tomorrow, firearm spec and everything. No further plea deals on this case.” At that point, Frierson asked for time to consult with defense counsel. The court recessed, and when it reconvened, defense counsel told the court that Frierson “has decided not to vacate his plea and will take the — and will be sentenced today.” Tr. 23. {¶3} Frierson does not dispute that he abandoned his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but maintains that the court had to renew the Crim.R. 11 plea advisement after he changed his mind. There is no merit to this argument. Because the court speaks only through its journal, State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 29, it could only vacate the guilty plea by journal entry. The court did not issue a journal entry granting the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, so the guilty plea remained extant. The court did not have to conduct a new plea colloquy. {¶4} Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. ______________________________________________ MELODY J. STEWART, PRESIDING JUDGE SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
