The opinion
[Cite as State v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-4874.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CLARK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: C.A. No. 2025-CA-19
Appellee :
: Trial Court Case Nos. 24-CR-0468; 25-
v. : CR-0118
:
MICHAEL BROWN, JR. : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
: Court)
Appellant :
: FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
OPINION
...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on October 24, 2025, the judgments of
the trial court are 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,
MICHAEL L. TUCKER, JUDGE
EPLEY, P.J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur.
OPINION
CLARK C.A. No. 2025-CA-19
CHIMA R. EKEH, Attorney for Appellant
CHRISTOPHER P. LANESE, Attorney for Appellee
TUCKER, J.
{¶ 1} Michael Brown, Jr. appeals from his conviction following guilty pleas in two
consolidated cases.
{¶ 2} Brown alleges ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney’s failure
to tell him pleading guilty would waive his ability to raise a speedy-trial issue on appeal.
{¶ 3} We conclude that Brown cannot establish ineffective assistance of counsel on
direct appeal because the record does not reveal what defense counsel told him about the
effect of pleading guilty. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.
I. Background
{¶ 4} On June 18, 2024, a grand jury indicted Brown on one count of burglary, a
second-degree felony, in Clark C.P. No. 24-CR-0468. The trial court’s docket sheet reflects
that he moved to dismiss the case on speedy-trial grounds on December 17, 2024, and that
the trial court overruled the motion the same day. Although not critical to our analysis, we
note that the motion and the trial court’s ruling have not been included in the record before
us. On February 24, 2025, Brown pled guilty to an amended charge of trespass in a
habitation, a fourth-degree felony.
{¶ 5} On February 24, 2025, Brown also was charged by bill of information with one
count of strangulation, a third-degree felony, in Clark C.P. No. 25-CR-0118. He pled guilty
the same day in exchange for dismissal of a third case involving an aggravated-burglary
2
charge and a joint recommendation for a 36-month prison sentence to be served
concurrently with the sentence imposed in Clark C.P. No. 24-CR-0468.
{¶ 6} After accepting Brown’s guilty plea in both cases, the trial court imposed
concurrent prison sentences of 18 months for trespass in a habitation and 36 months for
strangulation. Brown timely appealed from the two consolidated cases.
II. Analysis
{¶ 7} Brown’s assignment of error states:
BROWN RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
{¶ 8} Brown contends his attorney provided deficient representation by failing to tell
him pleading guilty would waive his ability to challenge the trial court’s speedy-trial ruling.
He asserts that this omission invalidated his plea and prejudiced him because he would not
have pled guilty if he had known doing so would waive his right to pursue a speedy-trial
argument on appeal.
{¶ 9} Upon review, we find Brown’s assignment of error to be unpersuasive. The
record does not reveal what defense counsel told him regarding the effect of pleading guilty.
“[O]ff-the-record events or conversations will not support an ineffective-assistance claim on
direct appeal.” State v. Bakos, 2025-Ohio-1272, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.). Because the deficient
representation Brown alleges depends on information outside of the record, his ineffective-
assistance claim must be raised in a post-conviction proceeding.
{¶ 10} Although Brown’s assignment of error must be overruled for the foregoing
reason, we note that pleading guilty may have been a wise strategic choice. In exchange for
guilty pleas in the two above-captioned cases, the State dismissed an aggravated-burglary
charge in another case and recommended concurrent prison sentences totaling 36 months.
Considering these favorable terms, there is certainly no reason to presume that defense
3
counsel never explained the consequences of pleading guilty. Brown reasonably may have
elected to accept the favorable plea offer even knowing the effect of a guilty plea on his
ability to challenge the speedy-trial ruling. We note too that his speedy-trial argument on
appeal focuses exclusively on events in Clark C.P. No. 24-CR-0597, the case that was
dismissed when he pled guilty to a bill of information in Clark C.P. No. 25-CR-0118. The
record from the dismissed aggravated-burglary case was not made part of this appellate
proceeding.
{¶ 11} For the foregoing reasons, Brown’s assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 12} The trial court’s judgments are affirmed in Clark C.P. Nos. 24-CR-0468 and
25-CR-0118.
.............
EPLEY, P.J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur.
4