State v. Meyers

2025 Ohio 5824

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 30, 2025
• Docket: WD-25-002
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Meyers, 2025-Ohio-5824.]

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

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. {87}WD-25-002

Appellee Trial Court No. 2024 CR 0047

v.

Randall J. Meyers DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: December 30, 2025

*****

Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.

***** MAYLE, J. {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Randall Meyers, appeals the December 13, 2024

Judgment Entry of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to an

aggregate term of 32 months after he pled guilty to two counts of gross sexual imposition.

For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court judgment. I. Background

{¶ 2} On February 8, 2024, Meyers was indicted on four counts of rape, all

felonies of the first degree. He was arraigned shortly after, and pled not guilty to all

charges.

{¶ 3} On October 10, 2024, after extensive plea negotiations, Meyers pled guilty

to two counts of gross sexual imposition, violations of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1), (C)(1), and

both felonies of the fourth degree. The two remaining counts of rape were dismissed

pursuant to the plea agreement.

{¶ 4} A sentencing hearing was held on December 12, 2024. At that time, the trial

court imposed two 16-month sentences to be served consecutively for a total aggregate

sentence of 32 months.

{¶ 5} Following his sentencing hearing, Meyers appealed to this court. He

presents one assignment of error for our review:

Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, §10 of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. II. Law and Analysis

{¶ 6} “Upon direct appeal, appellate courts generally review claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel on a de novo basis, simply because the issue originates at the

appellate level; no trial court has ruled on the issue. Appellate courts review the trial

record and are left to judge from the bare record whether the assistance was effective.”

State v. Gondor, 2006-Ohio-6679, ¶ 53.

2. {¶ 7} To establish constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant

must show “(1) deficient performance by counsel, that is, performance falling below an

objective standard of reasonable representation, and (2) prejudice—a reasonable

probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result would have been different.” State v.

Myers, 2018-Ohio-1903, ¶ 183, citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-688,

694 (1984). “‘In the context of guilty pleas, * * * in order to satisfy the ‘prejudice’

requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for

counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to

trial.” State v. Burns, 2013-Ohio-5913, ¶ 23 (6th Dist.), quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S.

52, 58-59 (1985). A “reasonable probability” is a “probability sufficient to undermine

confidence in the outcome.” Strickland at 694.

{¶ 8} When considering counsel’s performance, “a court must indulge a strong

presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional

assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the

circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’” Id. at

689, quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955).

{¶ 9} “A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is waived by a guilty plea,

unless the ineffective assistance caused the guilty plea to be involuntary.” State v.

Heising, 2008-Ohio-6803, ¶ 12 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Bennett, 2008–Ohio–5812, ¶ 5

(6th Dist.). In other words, “the alleged errors precluded [the defendant] from

3. knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entering his guilty plea.” State v. Tingler, 2022-

Ohio-3792, ¶ 11 (4th Dist.); State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269, 272 (1992).

{¶ 10} In Meyers’ sole assignment of error, he argues that his trial counsel

provided constitutionally ineffective assistance for not taking his case to trial and for

failing to address “trial issues.” Meyers’ argument essentially centers on the belief that

the prosecution presented insufficient evidence—i.e., that the reduced charges call into

question how strong the State’s case was and that the victim suffers from credibility

issues.

{¶ 11} Notably, Meyers does not argue that his counsel’s performance caused his

guilty plea to be involuntary. In his brief, Meyers concedes that his plea was not coerced

and that “it is difficult to argue that Counsel did not do an excellent job based [on] the

reduced charges Appellant pled to.” As previously mentioned, a guilty plea waives all

ineffective assistance of counsel claims except allegations that counsel’s errors precluded

a defendant from knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entering his guilty plea. See

Tingler at ¶ 11; Heising at ¶ 12. Accordingly, Meyers’ claim that his counsel was

ineffective for not taking his case to trial is waived.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 12} Based on our review of the record and the applicable law, we find Meyers’

sole assignment of error not well-taken.

4. {¶ 13} Accordingly, we affirm the December 13, 2024 judgment of the Wood

County Court of Common Pleas. Meyers is ordered to pay any costs of this appeal under

App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Myron C. Duhart, J. ____________________________ Charles E. Sulek, P.J. JUDGE 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/.

5.