Ohio Court of Appeals, 2017

State v. Meadows

Ohio Court of Appeals · Decided November 2, 2017 · Gallagher

2017 Ohio 8407

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Meadows (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
State v. Meadows (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
Meadows v. Ivey (District Court, N.D. Ohio 2020)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Meadows, 2017-Ohio-8407.]

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

{¶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.

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 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.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.