Court Opinion

ID: 9882738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:19:19.173406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:51.331465
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Meadows, 2023-Ohio-3469.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                      :

                Plaintiff-Appellee,                 :
                                                             No. 111950
                v.                                  :

REGINALD MEADOWS,                                   :

                Defendant-Appellant.                :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 26, 2023

                          Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                Case No. CR-21-666153-A
                                Application for Reopening
                              Motion Nos. 567129 and 567198

                                              Appearances:

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

                Reginald Meadows, pro se.

MARY J. BOYLE, J.:

                  Applicant, Reginald Meadows, seeks to reopen his appeal in State v.

Meadows, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111950, 2023-Ohio-1572. Meadows claims that

appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing that the convictions should be
vacated because, during the plea colloquy, Meadows was unaware of the mandatory

consecutive service of any sentence imposed for failure to comply with an order or

signal of a police officer. However, because the application was not timely filed and

Meadows does not establish good cause to excuse the delay, the application is

denied.

      I. Facts and Procedural History

               In September 2021, Meadows was involved in a high-speed police

pursuit that resulted in injuries to bystanders. He was indicted with nine counts

related to the incident, and Meadows pled guilty to six of those counts. The trial

court imposed an aggregate 92-month prison sentence, and Meadows appealed.

Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief that argued two assignments of error:

      I. [Appellant’s] guilty pleas were not entered knowingly, intelligently,
      or voluntarily because the trial court’s participation in the plea
      bargaining process undermined the voluntariness of the pleas.

      II. The trial court erred when it overruled defense counsel’s objection
      to the playing of the dashcam video at the sentencing hearing.

In an opinion journalized on May 11, 2023, this court overruled the assigned errors

and affirmed the convictions. Meadows at ¶ 29.

               On August 23, 2023, 104 days after the appellate decision was

journalized, Meadows filed an application for reopening. There, Meadows alleged

that appellate counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to challenge the

knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature of the guilty pleas Meadows entered

because the trial court failed to explain the mandatory consecutive nature of a

sentence imposed for a charge of failure to comply with the order or signal of a police
officer. Meadows alleged that the trial court stated that the sentence could be

imposed consecutively, but not that the trial court was required to do so.

               On August 25, 2023, an identical copy of the application for

reopening was docketed. This copy was likely meant as a copy provided for service

of the application to the state and submitted to the court in compliance with

App.R. 26(B)(3), which requires an applicant to provide a service copy of the

motion. However, delays in the mailing or delivery of the copy resulted in the

docketing of the filings as a separate application. The docket also notes that the clerk

caused a copy of the August 23, 2023 filing to be sent to the Cuyahoga County

prosecutor’s office the same day that it was filed. In an abundance of caution and to

the extent that this filing constitutes a separate application for reopening, it is denied

because only one application for reopening is permitted pursuant to App.R. 26(B).

State v. Twyford, 106 Ohio St.3d 176, 2005-Ohio-4380, 833 N.E.2d 289, ¶ 6.

               The state timely opposed the application, pointing out that it was

untimely without a showing of good cause and arguing that it should fail on the

merits.

      II. Law and Analysis

               A. Untimely Application Without a Showing of Good Cause

               App.R. 26(B) codifies and further defines the process by which a

criminal defendant may raise a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel

announced in State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992). The

rule provides that claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must be
brought within 90 days of the date that the appellate decision is journalized.

App.R. 26(B)(1). If the application is not filed within that time, the applicant is

required to show good cause to excuse the delay. App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). Where an

untimely application fails to address the delay or fails to establish good cause to

excuse the delay, it must be denied. State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d

784 (1995); State v. Mason, 90 Ohio St.3d 66, 734 N.E.2d 822 (2000); and State v.

Dudas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110573, 2023-Ohio-366, ¶ 2-3.

              The present application for reopening fails to address the fact that it

was filed more than 90 days from the journalization of the appellate decision and

fails to explain or advance any reason to excuse the delay. Therefore, it must be

denied. See State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861,

¶ 7; State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970.

              The application for reopening is denied.

MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR