State v. Meadows, 2017 Ohio 8407

2017 Ohio 8407

Ohio Ct. App.

2017

STATE OF OHIO v. ISAIAH S. MEADOWS

No. 105753

Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

November 2, 2017

2017-Ohio-8407

BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, P.J., Boyle, J., and Laster Mays, J.

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-16-607612-A

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Steve W. Canfil
55 Public Square, Suite 2100
Cleveland, Ohio 44113

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. O‘Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Fallon Radigan
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J.:

{¶1} Appellant, Isaiah Meadows, has appealed his convictions from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and has presented four assignments of error:

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The trial court violated appellant Meadows‘s Federal and State constitutional rights to due process of law and Crim.R.11 when it accepted appellants [sic] guilty pleas without informing him of the constitutional rights he was waiving in entering his pleas.

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The trial court erred in denying appellant Meadows‘s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.

THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Appellant Meadows was deprived of his Federal and State Constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel.

FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The trial court erred in proceeding with the plea hearing in the absence of either the results of the psychological evaluation of appellant Meadows or a stipulation to his competency and sanity at the time of the offenses.

{¶2} The state of Ohio has conceded the error set forth in the first assignment.

{¶3} After an independent review of the record, we find that the trial court, at the plea hearing, did fail to advise appellant of his constitutional rights and failed to comply with Crim.R. 11.

{¶4} We reverse appellant‘s convictions and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.¹

{¶5} As we have reversed appellant‘s convictions based upon the first assignment of error, the remaining claimed errors are rendered moot.

It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee the 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.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_____________________________________________

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE

MARY J. BOYLE, J., and

ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR

Notes

We also note that on August 3, 2016, the trial court referred appellant to the psychiatric clinic for an evaluation of his competency to stand trial and his sanity at the time of the act. There is nothing in the record, however, to indicate that the trial court made any findings as to appellant‘s competency and sanity. Upon remand, the trial court is directed to address this issue in accordance with R.C. 2945.37.