State v. Meriwether

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 26, 2026
• Docket: 2025-CA-53
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Meriwether, 2026-Ohio-2428.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 2025-CA-53 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 2023CR0232 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas BRICE TAYLOR MERIWETHER : Court) : Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & : OPINION

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on June 26, 2026, the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.

For the court,

CHRISTOPHER B. EPLEY, JUDGE

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur. OPINION GREENE C.A. No. 2025-CA-53

JOHN A. FISCHER, Attorney for Appellant MEGAN A. HAMMOND, Attorney for Appellee

EPLEY, J.

{¶ 1} Brice Meriwether appeals his convictions in the Greene County Common Pleas

Court following his guilty plea to one count of aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of

third degree, and one count of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or

drugs, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. Meriwether asserts that his plea was not made

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Additionally, Meriwether contends that he was

denied the effective assistance of counsel when his attorney allowed him to enter a guilty

plea instead of a no-contest plea. For the following reasons, the trial court’s judgment is

affirmed.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On March 12, 2022, at approximately 3:00 a.m., a Sugarcreek Township Police

officer responded to a call regarding a car parked at the entrance of Washington Mill Park

in Sugarcreek Township, Ohio. The vehicle was running, and Meriwether was observed

sleeping inside the vehicle. The officer knocked on the window to request Meriwether’s

driver’s license and insurance, which Meriwether provided. The officer noticed that

Meriwether’s speech was slurred and that he appeared to be nodding off while the officer

was asking him questions, so the officer asked him to step out of the vehicle. Meriwether

initially refused, but after the officer asked several times, he stepped out of his car. The

officer noticed that Meriwether’s pupils were constricted and he was slow to answer

questions. The officer decided to conduct field sobriety tests.

2 {¶ 3} First, the officer performed a horizontal gaze nystagmus test to detect the

presence of alcohol impairment, and Meriwether passed. Next, the officer performed a test

for lack of convergence to determine whether Meriwether was under the influence of drugs.

During this test, the officer completed two circles around Meriwether’s face before moving

his finger close to Meriwether’s nose without touching it. If the subject of this test is not under

the influence, the subject’s eyes will converge. The opposite will happen if the subject is

under the influence. The officer conducted this test on Meriwether twice, and during the

second time, the officer observed lack of convergence. Additionally, the officer conducted a

modified Romberg test, during which the subject is asked to tilt his head back, close his

eyes, and estimate the passage of thirty seconds. A slow response can indicate the

presence of drugs. Meriwether said “stop” after one minute and said he believed it had been

27 seconds. Finally, the officer conducted a finger dexterity test, during which Meriwether

was asked to count to four, forwards and backwards, four times while touching his thumb to

each of his fingers. Meriwether did not pass this test, and at that point, the officer placed

Meriwether under arrest for OVI. Before having Meriwether’s vehicle towed, the officer

conducted an inventory search of the car and found what he believed to be a

methamphetamine pipe.

{¶ 4} On April 21, 2023, Meriwether was indicted on one count of aggravated

possession of drugs, a felony of the third degree, and two counts of OVI, felonies of the

fourth degree. Meriwether filed a motion to suppress, challenging the constitutionality of his

stop and detention and requesting that the trial court suppress any evidence arising

therefrom. The trial court denied this motion in its entirety on July 24, 2024. On August 14,

2025, Meriwether pled guilty to aggravated possession of drugs and an amended charge of

OVI as a first-degree misdemeanor. In exchange, the State of Ohio agreed to dismiss the

3 felony OVI charges in the original indictment and recommend community control sanctions.

On September 25, 2025, the trial court sentenced Meriwether to a prison term of twenty-four

months.

{¶ 5} Meriwether appeals from his convictions, raising two assignments of error.

II. Meriwether’s Plea Was Made Knowingly, Intelligently, and Voluntarily

{¶ 6} In his first assignment of error, Meriwether asserts that his guilty plea was not

made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the trial court did not advise him on

how his plea would affect his ability to challenge the trial court’s pretrial motions rulings.

Meriwether acknowledges that there is nothing in the record to establish the extent of his

understanding of the impact of his guilty plea on his subsequent appellate rights.

Notwithstanding, Meriwether argues that the trial court and the parties should have expected

that he would want to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress.

{¶ 7} To comply with due process and be constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be

entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. State v. Lenoir, 2025-Ohio-563, ¶ 13

(2d Dist.), citing State v. Miller, 2017-Ohio-478, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.). In determining whether a

plea met those criteria, we conduct a de novo review of the record and examine the totality

of the circumstances to ensure that the trial court complied with constitutional and procedural

safeguards. Id., citing State v. Redavide, 2015-Ohio-3056, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 8} For a plea to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the trial court must comply

with Crim.R. 11(C). Lenoir at ¶ 14, citing State v. Russell, 2011-Ohio-1738, ¶ 6 (2d Dist.),

and State v. Greene, 2006-Ohio-480, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.). Crim.R. 11(C) sets forth the process

that a trial court must follow before accepting a felony plea of guilty or no contest and allows

the trial court to ensure that a defendant’s plea is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Id.,

citing State v. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200, ¶ 8. Specifically, Crim.R. 11(C)(2) requires the trial

4 court to address the defendant personally and make the following determinations: (a) that

the defendant is making the plea voluntarily and understands the nature of the charges,

maximum penalty, and eligibility for probation or community control sanctions; (b) that the

defendant understands the effect of the plea and that the court may proceed with judgment

and sentencing following acceptance of the plea; and (c) that the defendant understands

that, by entering the plea, he or she is waiving the rights to a jury trial, to confront witnesses

against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant’s

favor, and to require the State to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at

a trial, during which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself.

Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) through (c). A guilty plea is a complete admission of a defendant’s guilt.

Crim.R. 11(B)(2).

{¶ 9} Notably, a no-contest plea does not preclude a defendant from raising on appeal

the trial court’s ruling on a pretrial motion, including a pretrial motion to suppress evidence.

Crim.R. 12(I). In contrast, a guilty plea “operates as waiver of claimed errors of the trial court

in overruling pretrial motions.” State v. Graves, 2005-Ohio-5579, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.).

“Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b) requires the trial court to inform the defendant of the effect of his plea,

but the defendant, as part of this discussion, does not have to be informed that by pleading

guilty he is waiving his right to appeal any pretrial rulings.” State v. Jones, 2018-Ohio-2219,

¶ 13 (2d Dist.). The rationale behind this principle is that “the information that a guilty plea is

a complete admission of guilt, along with the other information required by Crim.R. 11,

assures that defendants enter pleas with knowledge of the rights they would forego and

creates a record by which appellate courts can determine whether pleas are entered

voluntarily.” State v. Griggs, 2004-Ohio-4415, ¶ 11. “However, if the trial court says anything

that could create confusion concerning the defendant’s appellate rights or if the defendant

5 indicates such confusion, this could, of course, undermine the Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b) effect of

plea discussion and render the plea less than voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.” Jones at

¶ 14.

{¶ 10} Here, the trial court informed Meriwether that his guilty plea constituted a

“complete admission [he] committed the allegations in those charges” and that, following the

acceptance of Meriwether’s plea, the court could proceed with sentencing. Most importantly,

the court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) through (c) when it advised Meriwether that, by

pleading guilty, he was waiving his right to a jury trial, as well as the right to confront all of

the state’s witnesses, to subpoena witnesses on his behalf, and to require the State prove

every element of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt without being compelled

to testify against himself. Meriwether stated that he understood and never made any

statements to the court to indicate that he was confused about this aspect of his plea.

{¶ 11} Because there is nothing in the record to suggest that Meriwether was

confused about his appellate rights, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s failure to

specifically advise Meriwether regarding those rights made his plea less than knowing,

voluntary, and intelligent.

{¶ 12} Meriwether’s first assignment of error is overruled.

III. Meriwether’s Counsel was Not Ineffective

{¶ 13} In his second assignment of error, Meriwether asserts that he was denied the

effective assistance of counsel because his attorney allowed him to enter a guilty plea rather

than a plea of no contest.

{¶ 14} “To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, [a defendant] must

demonstrate both that trial counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness and that the errors were serious enough to create a reasonable probability

6 that, but for the errors, the outcome of his trial would have been different.” Lenoir, 2025-

Ohio-563, ¶ 22 (2d Dist.). “Trial counsel is entitled to a strong presumption that his or her

conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable assistance.” Id. “Hindsight is not permitted

to distort the assessment of what was reasonable in light of counsel’s perspective at the

time, and a debatable decision concerning trial strategy cannot form the basis of a finding of

ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id., citing State v. Frazier, 2016-Ohio-727, ¶ 45 (2d Dist.),

State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516, 524-525 (1992), and State v. Rucker, 2012-Ohio-4860,

¶ 58 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 15} To be successful on his claim that his counsel was ineffective for allowing him

to plead guilty rather than no contest, Meriwether must establish that “(1) the State would

have agreed to a no-contest plea on the same terms; (2) counsel failed to advise the

defendant that a no-contest plea, in contradistinction to a guilty plea, would preserve the

pretrial issue for appeal; and (3) had defendant been so advised, the defendant would have

rejected the plea offer.” Id. at ¶ 24, citing Frazier at ¶ 82 and State v. McGlown, 2013-Ohio-

2762, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 16} There is nothing in the record to suggest or demonstrate that the State would

have agreed to a no-contest plea on the same terms as those agreed upon in exchange for

Meriwether’s guilty plea. Rather, as the State noted in its responsive brief, Meriwether

benefited significantly from the State’s agreement to amend one of the OVI charges to a

first-degree misdemeanor, dismiss the second OVI charge, and recommend community

control sanctions. The State further asserted that, given Meriwether’s three prior convictions

for OVI, “it is highly unlikely that the State would have extended the same generosity in

exchange for a no-contest plea.”

7 {¶ 17} In addition, the record is devoid of any evidence that Meriwether’s counsel

failed to advise him that a no-contest plea would preserve his right to appeal pretrial rulings.

Instead, the record of the plea hearing establishes that Meriwether had the opportunity to

confer with his counsel at any time during the trial court’s plea colloquy, and Meriwether

expressed satisfaction with his counsel’s representation. There is nothing in the record

before us to suggest that Meriwether’s counsel failed to advise him as to the effects of his

guilty plea, including the impact on his appellate rights.

{¶ 18} Finally, there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that Meriwether would

have rejected the plea offer if he had been aware of its impact on his ability to appeal pretrial

rulings. The record establishes that Meriwether expressed his satisfaction with his counsel

repeatedly and stated multiple times on the record that he wished to enter his guilty plea and

proceed to sentencing.

{¶ 19} Accordingly, Meriwether fails to establish that his counsel was ineffective for

allowing him to plead no contest instead of guilty. Meriwether’s second assignment of error

is overruled.

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 20} The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

.............

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.