State v. Meadows

2017 Ohio 8407

Opinion

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 105753

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

ISAIAH S. MEADOWS

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT:

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Criminal Appeal from the

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-16-607612-A

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

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 2, 2017

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

1 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

{¶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

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.