State v. Clements

[Cite as State v. Clements, 2026-Ohio-1589.]




                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                      LUCAS COUNTY


State of Ohio                                      Court of Appeals No. L-25-00145

        Appellee                                   Trial Court No. CR 24 2287

v.

Dujuan Clements                                    DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellant                                  Decided: May 1, 2026

                                               *****

        Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
        Lorrie J. Rendle, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.

                                               *****
        ZMUDA, J.

        {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Dujuan Clements, appeals the June 13, 2026 judgment

of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, assessing the costs of appointed counsel.

He also purports to appeal the trial court’s decision denying his motion to withdraw his

Alford plea, which was journalized in a separate judgment on July 10, 2025. For the

following reasons, we reverse the trial court’s assessment of appointed counsel fees, but

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction his assignments of error premised on the court’s July 10,

2025 judgment.
                                      I. Background

       {¶ 2} Dujuan Clements was charged with the following offenses in connection

with the August 19, 2024 shooting death of D.B.: aggravated murder, a violation of R.C.

2903.01(A) and (G), an unclassified felony (Count 1); aggravated murder, a violation of

R.C. 2903.01(B) and (G), an unclassified felony (Count 2); murder, a violation of R.C.

2903.02(A), an unclassified felony (Count 3); murder, a violation of R.C. 2903.02(B), an

unclassified felony (Count 4); felonious assault, a violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and

(D), a second-degree felony (Count 5); kidnapping, a violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(3) and

(C), a first-degree felony (Count 6); having weapons while under disability, a violation of

R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) and (B), a third-degree felony (Count 7); and discharge of a firearm

at or near a prohibited premises, a violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3) and (C)(4), a first-

degree felony (Count 8). Counts 1 through 6 included three-year firearm and repeat

violent offender specifications under R.C. 2941.145(A) and 2941.149, respectively;

Count 8 included a three-year firearm specification.

       {¶ 3} On June 12, 2025, the State and Clements reached an agreement pursuant to

which Clements entered a plea of guilty under North Carolina v. Alford to Count 1,

amended to involuntary manslaughter, a violation of R.C. 2903.04(A) and (C), a first-

degree felony, with the attached firearm specification; Count 7; and Count 8, with the

attached firearm specification. The trial court accepted Clements’s plea, made a finding

of guilty, and proceeded directly to sentencing. It imposed a prison term of a minimum

of 11 years to a maximum of 16 and one-half years on Count 1, plus three years on the

attached specification; 24 months on Count 7; and a minimum of 11 years to a maximum

2.
of 16 and one-half years on Count 8, plus three years on the attached specification. It

ordered that Clements’s sentences be served consecutively for a total prison term of 30

years to a maximum prison term of 35 and one-half years. This sentence had been agreed

upon by the parties as part of the plea agreement.

       {¶ 4} Clements’s conviction and sentence were memorialized in a judgment

journalized on June 13, 2025. At some point thereafter, Clements sent letters directly to

the court indicating that he wanted to withdraw his plea. A hearing took place on June

25, 2025. Clements told the court that he had felt pressured to accept the plea, he

maintained his innocence, and he indicated that he had always desired to go to trial. He

also expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that he had not been sentenced to a flat 30-

year prison sentence. The State characterized Clements’s desire to withdraw his plea as

“buyers remorse (sic) as to the sentence imposed.” It emphasized that the sentence had

been agreed upon, and it expressed that Clements had no legal right to withdraw the plea

post-sentence.

       {¶ 5} The trial court denied Clements’s motion to withdraw his plea at the hearing,

but “preserve[d]” the objection and request for appeal. It issued a written order denying

Clements’s motion, which was journalized on July 10, 2025.

       {¶ 6} On June 30, 2025, before the order on the motion to withdraw his plea was

journalized, Clements filed a notice of appeal of the June 13, 2025 sentencing judgment;

he did not file a new appeal or move to amend his original notice of appeal after the entry

of the July 10, 2025 judgment. Nevertheless, Clements assigns the following errors for

our review:

3.
              I. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s
       request to withdraw his plea when the record does not reflect when the
       motion to withdraw plea was made, i.e. before or after sentencing.

              II. Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel to the
       extent there is no documentation in the record as to when Appellant made
       his motion to withdraw his plea.

              III. The trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the costs
       of appointed counsel without discussion of Appellant’s ability to pay at the
       time of his release.

                                   II. Law and Analysis

       {¶ 7} Clements’s first and second assignments of error, respectively, claim that the

trial court abused its discretion and trial counsel was ineffective because the record does

not reflect when Clements made his motion to withdraw his plea—“i.e., before or after

sentencing.” His third assignment of error challenges the imposition of the costs of

appointed counsel.1

                                  A. Motion to Withdraw Plea

       {¶ 8} In his first assignment of error, Clements argues that “[w]ithout

documentation on the record as to when the request [to withdraw his guilty plea] was

made, let alone how it was made, i.e., in writing or orally, this court should find that the

trial court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw Pleas

without a hearing.” In his second assignment of error, he claims that trial counsel’s


1
  The State also asks us to remand this matter to the trial court for entry of a nunc pro
tunc entry to correct a clerical error misidentifying the applicable subsection of R.C.
2923.13(A)—Clements was indicted and pled to a violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) but
the sentencing judgment mistakenly references R.C. 2923.13(A)(3). The State has not
filed a cross-appeal, so we decline to grant the relief it seeks. Following the entry of this
decision, the State can address its request directly to the trial court.
4.
performance was ineffective because “there is no documentation in the record as to

whether the motion was made before or after sentencing.” We dismiss Clements’s first

and second assignments of error for lack of jurisdiction.

       {¶ 9} Clements’s first two assignments of error revolve entirely around the

supposed lack of clarity as to when the motion to withdraw his plea was made—pre- or

post-sentence. For the reasons explained below, we agree that the timing of the motion is

significant. But the record makes very clear that this was a post-sentence motion to

withdraw a plea. In arguing otherwise, it is apparent that appellate counsel has not

carefully reviewed the record.

       {¶ 10} To begin with, counsel did not order the transcript of the June 25, 2025

hearing on Clements’s motion. It seems that she did not read the transcript even after we

granted the State’s motion to supplement the record with this transcript. Even without the

hearing transcript, it can easily be deduced that Clements’s motion was made post-

sentence—the trial court accepted Clements’s plea on June 12, 2025, then proceeded

directly to sentencing. No motion was made between the trial court’s acceptance of the

plea and its announcement that it was going forward with sentencing.

       {¶ 11} But review of the June 25, 2025 transcript would have left no doubt that

this was a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. At the June 25, 2025 hearing,

the trial court explained that after “go[ing] through the entire plea and sentence,” but

before he was transported to the penitentiary, Clements sent letters to the court requesting

to withdraw his plea. The court essentially treated this request as an oral motion, and—



5.
contrary to Clements’s claim that the motion was denied “without a hearing”—it held a

hearing on June 25, 2025.

       {¶ 12} A trial court’s sentencing entry in a criminal case is a final, appealable

order. State v. Lester, 2011-Ohio-5204, paragraph one of the syllabus. So too is a

judgment denying a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. State v. Bennett,

2012-Ohio-3664, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.), citing State v. Kerns, 2011-Ohio-6788, ¶ 7 (9th Dist.);

State v. Rock, 2017-Ohio-9339, ¶ 6 (11th Dist.). But see State v. Harris, 2021-Ohio-1431,

¶ 4 (2d Dist.) (finding that oral motion to withdraw plea made immediately after the trial

court imposed sentence was an interlocutory order that merged into the final judgment of

conviction). Under App.R. 3(D) a “notice of appeal . . . shall designate the judgment,

order or part thereof appealed from[.]”

       {¶ 13} Here, the only judgment designated in Clements’s notice of appeal was the

June 13, 2025 sentencing entry. Clements failed to appeal the judgment denying his

motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was journalized on July 10, 2025. If Clements

intended to appeal the denial of his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, he

was required to file a notice of appeal designating that judgment. His failure to do so

deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider assignments of error relating to the denial of

his motion to withdraw his plea. See Bennett at ¶ 16; State v. Kennedy, 2002-Ohio-42, *

2 (8th Dist.) (“[T]he order denying the motion to withdraw not being designated in the

appellant’s notice of appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the order denying the

motion.”); State v. Dixon, 2004-Ohio-1593, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.) (explaining that it lacked

authority to review denial of post-sentence motion to withdraw plea where the defendant

6.
did not file a new notice of appeal or seek to amend his prior notice of appeal to include

that judgment, which had been entered after defendant filed appeal from sentencing

judgment); State v. Brantweiner, 2020-Ohio-5235, ¶ 15 (11th Dist.) (“Because

Brantweiner did not appeal from the order denying the motion to withdraw, we lack

jurisdiction to review the order denying the motion.”).

       {¶ 14} We, therefore, dismiss Clements’s first and second assignments of error.

                                 B. Costs of Appointed Counsel

       {¶ 15} In his third assignment of error, Clement argues that the trial court erred

when it imposed the costs of appointed counsel without discussing his ability to pay. The

Ohio Supreme Court clarified in State v. Taylor, 2020-Ohio-6786, ¶ 32, that although

costs of appointed counsel may be imposed at sentencing, they are not part of a

defendant’s sentence. As such, “we do not review the issue under R.C. 2953.08 for

appeals based on felony sentencing.” State v. Radabaugh, 2024-Ohio-5640, ¶ 79 (3d

Dist.), appeal not allowed, 2025-Ohio-231. Rather, we employ an abuse-of-discretion

standard of review. Id. See also Taylor at ¶ 41 (DeWine, J. concurring) (signaling that

proper standard of review is abuse of discretion).

       {¶ 16} An abuse of discretion connotes that the trial court’s attitude is

unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217,

219 (1983). An unreasonable decision is one that lacks sound reasoning to support the

decision. Hageman v. Bryan City Schools, 2019-Ohio-223, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.). “An

arbitrary decision is one that lacks adequate determining principle and is not governed by

any fixed rules or standard.” Id., quoting Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP v. Frutta

7.
del Mondo, Ltd., 2008-Ohio-3567, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.). And an unconscionable decision is

one “that affronts the sense of justice, decency, or reasonableness.” Id.

       {¶ 17} Under R.C. 2947.23, costs of prosecution are mandatory costs that must be

imposed, subject to the trial court’s discretion to waive those costs on the basis of an

offender’s indigency. State v. Gilmer, 2024-Ohio-1178, ¶ 102 (6th Dist.); State v. Wright,

2013-Ohio-1273, ¶ 5 (6th Dist.). Costs of appointed counsel, on the other hand, are

discretionary and require consideration of the offender’s ability to pay. Gilmer at ¶ 101.

       {¶ 18} Here, at the plea and sentencing hearing, the trial court asked defense

counsel: “Based on length of sentence, any request or motion regarding costs of

prosecution?” Defense counsel responded: “Based on Mr. Clements currently indigency

status (sic), the fact that [his defense attorneys] are appointed Counsel, and his age upon

presumed release at 68 years old[,] we request that the cost of prosecution be waived.”

The court granted the motion to waive the costs of prosecution—mandatory costs. But it

went on to assess the costs of appointed counsel—discretionary costs—to be reduced to a

civil judgment. In its sentencing judgment, it indicated that Clements was “found to have

or reasonably may be expected to have the means to pay all or part of the costs of

appointed counsel.”

       {¶ 19} Under R.C. 2941.51(D), a trial court need not make specific findings on the

record to justify the assessment of appointed-counsel fees. Taylor at ¶ 2. Nevertheless,

in Taylor, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that the trial court’s consideration of

whether the defendant can reasonably be expected to pay court-appointed-counsel fees

under R.C. 2941.51 involves the determination of “myriad factors similar to those a court

8.
would use to evaluate a defendant’s ability to pay court costs under R.C. 2947.23.” Id. at

¶ 29. Here, given the trial court’s findings with respect to the waiver of the mandatory

costs of prosecution, we conclude that its decision to assess the discretionary costs of

appointed counsel—requiring consideration of essentially the same factors—was an

abuse of discretion. See Radabaugh, 2024-Ohio-5640, at ¶ 81-85 (3d Dist.), appeal not

allowed, 2025-Ohio-231 (concluding that trial court abused its discretion in assessing

appointed-counsel costs where court’s finding that defendant may reasonably be expected

to pay costs of appointed counsel was at odds with its recognition that defendant

“realistically” lacked ability to pay other financial sanctions).

       {¶ 20} Accordingly, we find Clements’s third assignment of error well-taken and

vacate the assessment of the costs of appointed counsel.

                                       III. Conclusion

       {¶ 21} We dismiss Clements’s first and second assignments of error for lack of

jurisdiction. Clements never appealed the July 10, 2025 judgment denying his motion to

withdraw his plea.

       {¶ 22} We find Clements’s third assignment of error well-taken. Given that the

decision whether to impose the costs of appointed counsel required the same

considerations as those for waiving the costs of prosecution, we conclude that the trial

court abused its discretion when it waived prosecution costs but ordered Clements to pay

the costs of appointed counsel.

       {¶ 23} We vacate the June 13, 2025 judgment of the Lucas County Court of

Common Pleas only as to the imposition of the costs of appointed counsel. The June 13,

9.
2025 judgment is in all other respects affirmed. Clements and the State are ordered to

share the costs of this appeal under App.R. 24.

                                         Judgement vacated, in part, and affirmed, in part.

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.



 Thomas J. Osowik, P.J.
                                                                 JUDGE

 Gene A. Zmuda, J.
                                                                 JUDGE

 Myron C. Duhart, J.
 CONCUR.                                                         JUDGE


       This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
  Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
       version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.




10.