State v. Calhoun , 2022 Ohio 4269 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Calhoun, 2022-Ohio-4269.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 29604
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
MICHAEL CALHOUN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 19 07 2295
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: November 30, 2022
CALLAHAN, Judge.
{¶1} In this reopened appeal, Appellant, Michael Calhoun, appeals his convictions by
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court confirms our prior decision.
I.
{¶2} On the evening of February 6, 2019, a gunman fired six shots at an SUV on Ella
Court in Akron. One of those shots hit a passenger in the backseat of the SUV, puncturing her
lung and destroying a portion of her esophagus. The driver of the vehicle rushed her to the hospital,
where she required emergency surgery. In the meantime, residents of the neighborhood where the
shooting happened reported the incident, and an off-duty Akron police officer working at the
hospital reported the arrival of a shooting victim to the police. A detective who interviewed the
two occupants of the SUV at the hospital learned the identity of a woman who had also been
present at the scene, and she ultimately identified Mr. Calhoun as the shooter. Once her recovery
was well underway, the victim, T.O., identified Mr. Calhoun and another individual from a photo
2
array. Another individual who was present during the shooting also gave police a written statement
that implicated Mr. Calhoun in the shooting.
{¶3} Mr. Calhoun, who was seventeen years old on the date of the shooting, was bound
over by the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, for trial as an adult. On
July 18, 2019, Mr. Calhoun was indicted on four charges of felonious assault, each accompanied
by a firearm specification. A jury found him guilty of each count and each specification, and the
trial court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms totaling twenty years.
{¶4} Mr. Calhoun appealed. This Court affirmed his conviction, concluding, in part, that
Mr. Calhoun failed to separately argue that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the
evidence and declining to address his manifest-weight arguments on that basis. State v. Calhoun,
9th Dist. Summit No. 29604, 2021-Ohio-1713, ¶ 24-25. Mr. Calhoun filed an application to reopen
his appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B), arguing that appellant counsel was ineffective because he
failed to challenge the juvenile court’s decision that he should be bound over for prosecution, did
not assign as error the trial court’s sentencing decision, and inadequately argued that Mr.
Calhoun’s convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶5} On February 2, 2022, this Court concluded that there was a genuine issue that
counsel was ineffective in representing Mr. Calhoun on appeal and granted the application to
reopen. Mr. Calhoun’s reopened appeal raises four assignments of error. Because all of his
assignments of error must be overruled for the same reason, this Court consolidates them for
purposes of discussion.
3
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING PROBABLE
CAUSE AND THAT THE JUVENILE WAS NOT AMENABLE TO A
JUVENILE SANCTION[.]
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IMPOSING
SENTENCE ON APPELLANT[.]
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3
THE VERDICT OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE[.]
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADMITTING AN OUT OF COURT
STATEMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO
CONFRONTATION UNDER BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO
CONSTITUTIONS AND THE OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE[.]
{¶6} In his four assignments of error, Mr. Calhoun argues that the juvenile court abused
its discretion by binding him over for prosecution as an adult, that the trial court erred in imposing
sentence upon him, that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that
the trial court erred by permitting the introduction of evidence in violation of his rights under the
Confrontation Clause. Because Mr. Calhoun failed to address the fundamental issue of ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel, however, we cannot reach the merits of these arguments and must
instead overrule his assignments of error.
{¶7} “App.R. 26(B) creates a special procedure for a thorough determination of a
defendant’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.” State v. Davis, 119 Ohio St.3d 422,
2008-Ohio-4608, ¶ 26. The Rule creates a two-stage procedure for the adjudication of ineffective-
assistance claims. State v. Leyh, 166 Ohio St.3d 365, 2022-Ohio-292, ¶ 19. In the first, the
4
applicant must apply for reopening of the appeal as set forth in App.R. 26(B). Id. at ¶ 20. “‘The
first stage involves a threshold showing for obtaining permission to file new appellate briefs.’” Id.
at ¶ 19, quoting 1993 Staff Notes, App.R. 26. At this stage, an appellant must demonstrate that
there is a “‘“genuine issue” as to whether he has a “colorable claim” of ineffective assistance of
counsel on appeal.’” State v. Simpson, 164 Ohio St.3d 102, 2020-Ohio-6719, ¶ 12, quoting State
v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24, 25 (1998). When an application for reopening is granted, it proceeds
to the second stage, where “[t]he case is then treated as if it were an initial direct appeal, with briefs
and oral argument.” Simpson at ¶ 13.
{¶8} During the second stage of the procedure, this Court must determine whether “the
performance of appellate counsel was deficient and the applicant was prejudiced by that
deficiency[.]” App.R. 26(B)(9). See also Leyh at ¶ 24. “[T]he prior appellate judgment may not
be altered unless the applicant established at the second stage that the direct appeal was meritorious
and failed because appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance” under the test set forth in
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). (Emphasis added.) Leyh at ¶ 24.
Summarizing this procedure, the Supreme Court of Ohio has written:
Thus, the two-stage procedure prescribed by App.R. 26(B) requires that the
applicant seeking permission to reopen his direct appeal show at the first stage that
there is at least a genuine issue—that is, legitimate grounds—to support the claim
that the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal. See
App.R. 26(B)(5). If that showing is made and the application is granted, the
applicant must then establish at the second stage the merits of both the direct
appeal and the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. See App.R.
26(B)(9).
(Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 25.
{¶9} This Court recently considered the language of App.R. 26(B)(9) in light of this
precedent and concluded that when an appellant fails to address ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel in a brief filed in a reopened appeal, this Court must confirm our prior judgment. State v.
5
Osborne, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 17CA011208, 2022-Ohio-734, ¶ 9, citing App.R. 26(B)(9). In doing
so, we recognized that under these circumstances, an appellant “will not be permitted to file a
subsequent application to reopen to allege ineffective assistance of appellate counsel” but
concluded that “we must nonetheless apply [App.R. 26(B)] as written.” Id.{¶10} As in Osborne, this Court ordered Mr. Calhoun to file an appellate brief that
addressed whether prior appellate counsel was ineffective. Mr. Calhoun’s brief set forth four
assignments of error, but, as in Osborne, “neglected to address the issue of ineffective assistance
of appellate counsel.” Id. at ¶ 8. Consequently, this Court must “apply the rule as written” and
confirm our prior judgment. Id. at ¶ 9.
{¶11} Mr. Calhoun’s assignments of error are overruled.
III.
{¶12} Mr. Calhoun’s assignments of error are overruled. Pursuant to App.R. 26(B), we
confirm our prior judgment in Calhoun, 2021-Ohio-1713. The judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
6
for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the
docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
LYNNE S. CALLAHAN
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, P. J.
SUTTON, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
ANGELA M. KILLE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.