Court Opinion

ID: 9882740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:19:20.952631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:24.064924
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Conner, 2023-Ohio-3485.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                     :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,               :
                                                            No. 111889
                 v.                                :

KENDLE CONNER,                                     :

                 Defendant-Appellant.              :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 22, 2023

         Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                  Case Nos. CR-21-661251-B and CR-21-661269-A
                             Application for Reopening
                                Motion No. 565924

                                             Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Alan F. Dowling, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.

                 Kendle Conner, pro se.

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J.:

        {¶ 1} Kendle Conner has filed a timely application for reopening pursuant to

App.R. 26(B). Conner is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in

State v. Conner, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111889, 2023-Ohio-1220, that affirmed the
pleas of guilty and sentences imposed in State v. Conner, Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-

21-661269-A and CR-21-661251-B, for the offenses of involuntary manslaughter

(R.C. 2903.04(A)), felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)) and having weapons while

under disability (R.C. 2923.13(A)(2)). We decline to reopen Conner’s appeal.

I. Standard of Review Applicable to App.R. 26(B) Application for
Reopening

      {¶ 2} An application for reopening will be granted if there exists a genuine

issue as to whether an appellant was deprived of the effective assistance of appellate

counsel on appeal.     See App.R. 26(B)(5).     To establish a claim of ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel, Conner is required to establish that the performance

of his appellate counsel was deficient and the deficiency resulted in prejudice.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984);

State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S.

1011, 110 S.Ct. 3258, 111 L.Ed.2d 768 (1990).

      {¶ 3} In Strickland, the United States Supreme Court held that a court’s

scrutiny of an attorney’s work must be highly deferential. The court further stated

that “it is all too tempting for a defendant to second-guess” his attorney after

conviction and that it would be “too easy” for a court to conclude that a specific act

or omission was deficient, especially when examining the matter in hindsight. Id. at

689. Thus, a court must indulge in “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., quoting Michel v.

Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955).

      {¶ 4} Even if Conner establishes that an error by his appellate counsel was

professionally unreasonable, Conner must further establish that he was prejudiced;

but for the unreasonable error there exists a reasonable probability that the results

of his appeal would have been different. Reasonable probability, regarding an

application for reopening, is defined as a probability sufficient to undermine

confidence in the outcome of the appeal. State v. May, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

97354, 2012-Ohio-5504.

II. Argument

      {¶ 5} Conner raises three proposed assignments of error in support of his

application for reopening:

      Trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel, pursuant to
      State v. Anthony, 2015-Ohio-2267, 37 N.E.3d 751 (8th Dist.), where
      counsel advised appellant to waive the allied offense application of R.C.
      2941.25(a) relating to the involuntary manslaughter and felonious
      assault counts.

      Trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel where he
      waived the issue of allied offenses by agreeing with the state that the
      involuntary manslaughter and felonious assault counts are not allied
      offenses.

      Appellant’s guilty plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, or
      voluntarily due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel where counsel
      incorrectly advised appellant on allied offense R.C. 2941.25(a), thereby
      causing appellant to waive the application of allied offense sentencing
      R.C. 2941.25(a) on the involuntary manslaughter and felonious assault
      offenses.
      {¶ 6} Conner’s three proposed assignments of error essentially involve the

issues of 1) whether the offenses of involuntary manslaughter and felonious assault,

to which he plead guilty, were allied offenses of similar import that required merger

for purposes of sentencing and 2) the pleas of guilty were not made voluntarily,

knowingly, and intelligently.

A. Waiver

      {¶ 7} This court has held that when the transcript demonstrates the state and

defense counsel specifically agreed that the offenses were not allied, the issue of

allied offenses is waived. State v. Booker, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101886, 2015-

Ohio-2515; State v. Adams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100500, 2014-Ohio-3496; State

v. Yonkings, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98632, 2013-Ohio-1890; State v. Carman, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99463, 2013-Ohio-4910; State v. Ward, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

97219, 2012-Ohio-1199. Herein, the transcript of the sentencing hearing clearly

demonstrates that the state and defense counsel specifically agreed that the felony

offenses, to which Conner plead guilty, were not allied offenses: “Your Honor, part

and parcel of this plea agreement in this case, Counts 1 and — amended Count 1

[involuntary manslaughter] and Count 4 [felonious assault] will not merge for

purposes of sentencing.” Tr. 5.

      {¶ 8} In addition, Conner bargained with the state to achieve a desired

outcome — that is to avoid a potential longer term of incarceration with regard to

the offenses of aggravated murder, murder, and felonious assault as originally

charged in the indictments. In CR-21-661269-A, the state amended Count 1 from
aggravated murder to involuntary manslaughter, nolled the offense of murder in

Count 2, nolled the offense of murder in Count 3 and nolled the offense of felonious

assault in Count 5. In CR-21-661251-B, the state nolled the offense of having

weapons while under disability in Count 2, nolled the offense of tampering with

evidence in Count 4 and nolled the offense of carrying a concealed weapon in Count

5. Conner accepted and received the benefit of amended indictments and reduced

sentences and is not permitted to challenge the plea of guilty based upon the

argument of allied offenses. State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1,

922 N.E.2d 923; State v. Haser, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2020-0029, 2021-

Ohio-460; State v. Styles, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 71052, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS

4547 (Oct. 9, 1997).

B. Res Judicata

      {¶ 9} The doctrine of res judicata prevents further review of the issues of

allied offenses and defective guilty pleas pursuant to Crim.R. 11 because the issues

have already been addressed by this court on direct appeal and found to be without

merit. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967). Claims of

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in an application for reopening may be

barred from further review by the doctrine of res judicata unless circumstances

render the application of the doctrine unjust. State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60,

584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992); State v. Logan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88472, 2008-Ohio-

1934; State v. Tate, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81682, 2004-Ohio-973.
        {¶ 10} This court, in the appellate opinion journalized April 13, 2023,

reviewed the issues of allied offenses and whether Conner’s guilty pleas were

voluntary, knowing, and intelligent and found no error of law. See State v. Conner,

supra, ¶ 23, 24, 26, and 37. We further find that circumstances do not render the

application of the doctrine of res judicata unjust. State v. Tyford, 106 Ohio St.3d

176, 2005-Ohio-4380, 833 N.E.2d 289; State v. Robinson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

110467, 2022-Ohio-3033; State v. Pratt, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93123, 2010-Ohio-

4998.

C. Effect of Guilty Plea

        {¶ 11} A plea of guilty waives a defendant’s right to challenge his or her

conviction on all potential issues except for jurisdictional issues and the claim that

ineffective assistance of counsel caused the guilty plea to be less than knowing,

intelligent, and voluntary. Montpelier v. Greeno, 25 Ohio St.3d 170, 495 N.E.2d

581 (1986); State v. Vihtelic, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105381, 2017-Ohio-5818; State

v. Szidik, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95644, 2011-Ohio-4093; State v. Salter, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 82488, 2003-Ohio-5652.

        {¶ 12} By entering pleas of guilty, Conner waived all appealable errors that

might have occurred at trial unless the errors prevented Conner from entering a

knowing and voluntary plea. State v. Kelley, 57 Ohio St.3d 127, 566 N.E.2d 658

(1991); State v. Barnett, 73 Ohio App.3d 244, 596 N.E.2d 1101 (2d Dist.1991). Our

additional review of the plea transcript clearly demonstrates that the trial court

meticulously complied with the mandates of Crim.R. 11 and that Conner entered a
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea of guilty. Because Conner’s pleas were

knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made and the claimed error raised by

Conner is not based upon any jurisdictional defects, the raised proposed assignment

of error is waived. We further find that no prejudice can be demonstrated by Conner

based upon appellate representation on appeal. State v. Bates, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 100365, 2015-Ohio-297.

D. No Reasonable Probability of Different Outcome

      {¶ 13} Finally, there exists no reasonable probability that, but for appellate

counsel’s claimed error on appeal, the results of Conner’s appeal would have been

different. Conner has failed to establish any prejudice through the three proposed

assignments of error raised in support of his claim of ineffective assistance of

appellate counsel. State v. Gulley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109045, 2020-Ohio-

4746; State v. Lester, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105992, 2018-Ohio-5154.

      {¶ 14} Accordingly for reopening is denied.

__________________________________
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE

MARY J. BOYLE, J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR