State v. Almeyda
2021 Ohio 862
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Daniel Almeyda was charged with two counts of violating a domestic-violence civil protection order (R.C. 2919.27(A)(1)) for incidents on June 2 and June 20, 2019.
- An ex parte CPO issued May 23, 2019 required Almeyda to vacate the parties’ home and stay 500 feet away; Almeyda was served with the CPO that day.
- June 2: Aubrey saw Almeyda drive by, return, stop near the house (photograph showing him seated in his van), and told him to leave; police were called but Aubrey declined to pursue criminal charges then; Officer Brooks later warned Almeyda by phone, and he acknowledged knowing about the CPO.
- June 20: Aubrey observed Almeyda drive past and then park nearby; she called 9-1-1; a neighbor texted he saw Almeyda; an officer later located Almeyda in the van.
- At trial the State presented uncontradicted eyewitness, neighbor, and police testimony; Almeyda did not present evidence. A jury convicted him on both counts.
- Trial court sentenced Almeyda to consecutive jail terms (with partial suspension) and two years supervised probation. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking permission to withdraw; no pro se brief was filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for acquittal under Crim.R. 29 (i.e., failure to challenge sufficiency of the evidence) | The State: evidence was overwhelming and uncontradicted; any Crim.R. 29 motion would fail, so no prejudice from omission | Almeyda (as suggested by appellate counsel): counsel should have moved for acquittal because the evidence was insufficient | Court: frivolous. Verdict supported by sufficiency and manifest weight; no reasonable probability result would differ; ineffective-assistance claim lacks merit |
| Whether appellate counsel may withdraw under Anders because the appeal is wholly frivolous | The State: no non-frivolous issues exist; Anders withdrawal appropriate | Almeyda: no pro se brief was filed asserting contrary issues | Court: After independent review, the appeal is wholly frivolous; counsel may withdraw and the convictions are affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires counsel to file brief identifying any arguable issues and appellate court to independently review for frivolousness)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (clarifies appellate duties when counsel files an Anders brief)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency of the evidence standard for criminal convictions)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest-weight standard and exceptional-case reversal guidance)