STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MATTHEW JAMES MEEKS, Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. 2022-A-0060
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY
March 27, 2023
[Cite as State v. Meeks, 2023-Ohio-988.]
MATT LYNCH, J.
Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas Trial Court No. 2021 CR 00351 Judgment: Affirmed
Michael J. Ledenko, Assistant Public Defender, 22 East Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Defendant-Appellant).
OPINION
MATT LYNCH, J.
{1} Defendant-appellant, Matthew James Meeks, appeals from his conviction and sentence for Aggravated Robbery in the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.
{2} On August 26, 2021, Meeks was indicted by the Ashtabula County Grand Jury for Attempted Robbery, a felony of the third degree, in violation of
{3} On October 26, 2021, Meeks filed a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
{4} On May 12, 2022, a Written Plea of Guilty and Plea Agreement was filed. Meeks entered a plea of guilty to Aggravated Robbery as charged in the indictment and the Attempted Robbery charge was dismissed. The State indicated that the crime oсcurred when Meeks went to a car wash, demanded money from the owner, threatened to kill him, and hit him in the head.
{5} At the plea hearing, the court inquired whether Meeks was able to read, write, and understand the English language, to which he responded that he сould read but has “trouble understanding.” The court informed him that it would provide him additional time to speak with his attorneys as needed during the plea hearing. The court explained to Meeks the potential term of incarceration. Meeks consultеd with his attorneys and then indicated he understood the potential penalties. The court advised Meeks of the rights waived by his entry of a guilty plea. The court determined that the plea was entered voluntarily, that Meeks understood the rights being waived, and аccepted his guilty plea.
{6} A sentencing hearing was held on June 29, 2022, at which defense counsel observed that Meeks had a prior criminal record but “only four of those convictions are for crimes of violence or crimes of aggression” and that the rest related to substance
{7} On December 9, 2022, appellate counsel filed Meeks’ appеllate brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel represented that he had reviewed the record, found “no meritorious issues” upon which to base an appeal, and moved to withdraw. This court granted Meeks 30 days in which “to file his own submission, if he so chooses, which raisеs any arguments in support of the appeal.” Appellate counsel‘s request to withdraw was held in abeyance. Meeks has not filed any further brief or memorandum in support of his appeal.
{8} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court outlined the proрer steps to be followed in this situation: “if counsel finds his client‘s case to be wholly frivolous, counsel should advise the court and request permission to withdraw; * * * the request to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; * * * counsel should furnish the indigent client with a copy of counsel‘s
{9} In his brief, counsel raises one potential area for review which may arguably support the appeal: “The trial court erred in imposing a prison sentence greater than the minimum available sentence on defendant-appellant, Matthew J. Meeks.” Counsel concludes this error lacks merit.
{10} Pursuant to
{11} In hearing an appeal of felony sentencеs, the appellate court reviews the record and “may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand * * * if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hаt the sentence is * * * contrary to law.”
{12} “Trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences.” State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, paragraph seven of the syllabus; State v. Vieira, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2021-L-110, 2022-Ohio-1636, ¶ 12. Therе is no mandate for judicial fact-finding but the court “is merely to ‘consider’ the statutory factors” contained in
{13} Here, the court sentenced Meeks to a term that was permissible under the statutory range for a felony of the first degree, which provides thаt the prison term shall be an indefinite term with a minimum range of three to eleven years.
{14} There is also no meritorious issue relating to the fact that Meeks was sentenced pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law, S.B 201, which allows for indefinite prison terms for first- and second-degree felonies.
{15} A further review of the record reveals no other meritorious issues for review, including the entry and acceptance of Meeks’ plea.
{16} Prior to the entry of Meeks’ guilty plea, he entered a written plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, underwent competency evaluations, and the court found that he was competent to stand trial and understood the wrongfulness of his acts at the timе of the crime. We do not find any meritorious issues for review in relation to the NGRI plea.
{17} As this court and others have held, “[a] guilty plea waives any argument concerning an insanity defense.” State v. Crew, 11th Dist. Portage Nos. 2021-P-0028, et al., 2022-Ohio-752, ¶ 28; State v. Pepper, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2013-CA-6, 2014-Ohio-3841, ¶ 6 (a “guilty plea constituted an implied admission of sanity, and the trial court‘s acceptance of the plea was an affirmation of its belief in [defendant‘s] sanity“).
{18} As to the issue of competency, “a trial court does not abuse its discretion in finding a defendant competent where its findings оf competency are supported by some reliable, credible evidence.” State v. Spurrier, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-069, 2021-Ohio-1061, ¶ 42. “The constitutional standard for assessing a defendant‘s competency
{19} Here, the court relied on the evaluatiоns conducted in determining that Meeks was competent to stand trial. The evaluations support this finding and demonstrate that he was able to understand the proceedings and consult with his attorney. Thus, he was also competent to enter a plea of guilty.
{20} Further, a review of the plea hearing proceedings support this conclusion and reveal that his plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. See State v. Zachery, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2004CA00091, 2004-Ohio-6282, ¶ 21 (defendant‘s competence to enter a guilty plea was supported by his actiоns in executing a change of plea form and expression that he understood his rights during the plea hearing). The court complied with the requirements of
{21} Pursuant to
{22} Finally, we find no error as to the order of restitution.
{23} Having thus duly conducted an independent review of the record, we conclude that the present appeal is wholly frivolous and there are no arguable issues necessitating the appointment of new counsel. Counsel‘s Motion to Withdraw is granted
MARY JANE TRAPP, J., EUGENE A. LUCCI, J., concur.
MATT LYNCH
JUDGE, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT