COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70889 : STATE OF OHIO : : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and v. : : OPINION KEVIN JOHNSON : : : Defendant-Appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: AUGUST 28, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-326201 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, ESQ. LAURA T. PALINKAS, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 4329 West 10th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44109 EDWARD F. FERAN, ESQ. Assistant County Prosecutor KEVIN JOHNSON, pro se The Justice Center No. 321-397 1200 Ontario Street P.O. Box 57 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Marion, Ohio 43301-0057 - 2 - KARPINSKI, J.: In this appeal from his conviction on two drug trafficking charges to which he pled guilty, defendant-appellant Kevin Johnson challenges the trial court's disposition of his motion to suppress evidence. Johnson was indicted July 24, 1995, in Case No. CR-326201 on two counts of trafficking in phenyl cyclohexyl piperidine ("PCP"), one count of trafficking in marijuana, and one count for possession of criminal tools. He was appointed counsel, entered a plea of not guilty, and filed a motion to suppress physical evidence. The matter proceeded to a hearing on Johnson's motion to suppress and was submitted to the trial court for disposition at the conclusion of the evidence and arguments of counsel. (Tr. 131). Prior to the announcement or journalization of the trial court's ruling on his motion to suppress, the parties entered into a plea agreement. Defendant agreed to plead guilty to the two PCP drug trafficking charges, which were reduced to lesser offenses by amendment, in return for the dismissal of the two remaining charges in Case No. 326201 and three drug charges in prior Case No. CR-320126. (Tr. 132-152). Represented by newly appointed appellate counsel, Johnson raises the following sole assignment of error in this delayed appeal: - 3 - THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF APPELLANT'S AUTOMOBILE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND NOT JUSTIFIED AS A SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO AN ARREST WHERE APPELLANT WAS OVER 100 FEET AWAY FROM HIS VEHICLE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED AND HANDCUFFED, WHERE HE WAS NEVER OBSERVED TO BE A RECENT OCCUPANT OF THE VEHICLE, AND WHERE THE POLICE OFFICERS DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ASSOCIATE THE VEHICLE WITH CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT APPELLANT WAS ARRESTED AS A RESULT OF AN OUTSTANDING WARRANT FOR DRUG TRAFFICKING. Defendant's sole assignment challenges the trial court's 1 disposition of his motion to suppress evidence. This argument lacks merit for two reasons. First, it is well established that a trial court speaks only through its journal entries. State ex rel. Hansen v. Reed (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 597; State v. Brown (1989), 59 Ohio App.3d 1. The trial judge in this case never journalized a ruling on defendant's motion because the parties entered into a plea 1 Pursuant to leave of court, defendant pro se filed a "reply brief" in which he raised new claims that his guilty plea was involuntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. However, even if this court were inclined to consider such belated arguments--which are well beyond a reply to the state's brief--they are belied by the record. Defendant specifically stated during the plea hearing that he made the guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. (Tr. 149). His initial reluctance to plead guilty did not invalidate his plea, particularly because it was not accompanied by claims of innocence. See Alford v. North Carolina (1970), 400 U.S. 25. Although all the charges were possession offenses, counsel negotiated the complete dismissal of five charges in two cases, as well as the reduction of the two charges to which defendant pleaded guilty in this case, to obtain a substantially reduced potential sentence. The record supports the trial court's specific finding that counsel competently represented him (Tr. 141-142), and contains no evidence of prejudice. - 4 - bargain. Without a properly signed and filed written journal entry resolving the issue there is nothing to appeal. Second, and more importantly, a plea of guilty waives the right to challenge a conviction on the ground that a motion to suppress should have been granted. State v. Shabazz (Dec. 30, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 63826, unreported at p. 6.; State v. Elliot (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 792, 795; Huber Heights v. Duty (1985), 27 Ohio App.3d 244. Even if defendant had not effectively withdrawn his pending motion and the trial court had denied it by written journal entry, defendant waived any claim of error by entering guilty pleas and admitting his factual guilt. Accordingly, defendant's sole assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 5 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. NAHRA, P.J., and LEO M. SPELLACY, J., CONCUR. DIANE KARPINSKI JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement .