State v. Meadows , 2023 Ohio 1572 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Meadows, 2023-Ohio-1572.]
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: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 11, 2023
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-21-666153-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Brittany Fletcher, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
John T. Forristal, for appellant.
MARY J. BOYLE, J.:
Defendant-appellant, Reginald Meadows (“Meadows”), was involved
in a police chase following a traffic stop, which resulted in Meadows crashing into
two vehicles. He appeals from his guilty plea to failure to comply, aggravated
vehicular assault, carrying a concealed weapon, trafficking, drug possession, and
possessing criminal tools, arguing that the trial court’s participation in his plea
rendered his plea invalid.
I. Facts and Procedural History
In September 2021, the Independence Police stopped Meadows for
failing to maintain his lane of travel. As the police officer was in his cruiser running
Meadows’s identification, which revealed that Meadows had active warrants and a
suspended driver’s license, Meadows took off in his vehicle at a high rate of speed
and a pursuit ensued. Meadows was speeding, ran through red lights, and drove
against traffic on SR 21 in Independence. Meadows crashed into a vehicle as he
approached the intersection of SR 21 and Rockside Road, causing the vehicle to flip
on its side. The driver of this vehicle had to be life-flighted from the scene to the
hospital. The driver sustained several injuries including a dislocated shoulder, ten
broken ribs, and a punctured lung. Meadows’s vehicle then crashed into another
vehicle, which ended the pursuit. The driver of this vehicle suffered lower back
spasms and soreness, and her 5-year-old grandson sustained no physical injury but
was emotionally traumatized. The police search of Meadows’s vehicle revealed a
loaded firearm, 1.34 grams of meth, and drug-related tools.1
As a result of this incident, Meadows was charged in a nine-count
indictment in December 2021. Counts 1-3 charged him with failure to comply, with
1 The above facts were set forth by the state at Meadows’s August 2022 sentencing
hearing.
both a one-year firearm specification and a forfeiture of weapon clause attached to
each count. These counts also carried furthermore clauses stating that the operation
of the motor vehicle by the offender was a proximate cause of serious physical harm
to persons or property (Counts 1 and 2) and the offender was fleeing immediately
after the commission of a felony (Count 3). Count 4 charged him with aggravated
vehicular assault, with both a one-year firearm specification and a forfeiture of
weapon clause attached. Count 5 charged him with carrying a concealed weapon,
with a forfeiture of weapon clause attached and a furthermore clause stating that the
weapon involved was a firearm that was either loaded or for which the offender had
ammunition ready at hand. Count 6 charged him with improperly handling firearms
in a motor vehicle, with a forfeiture of weapon clause attached. Count 7 charged him
with trafficking, with both a one-year firearm specification and three forfeiture
clauses attached. Count 8 charged him with drug possession, with both a one-year
firearm specification and three forfeiture clauses attached. Count 9 charged him
with possessing criminal tools, with a furthermore clause and three forfeiture
clauses attached.
The matter was set for trial on July 6, 2022. The day before, Meadows
was in court with his defense counsel and the prosecutor preparing for trial. The
parties went on the record, and defense counsel explained to the court that there
may be an opportunity to resolve the matter and Meadows was concerned with the
mandatory nature of the penalties. During this discussion, the trial court advised
Meadows that the aggravated vehicular assault count carried a mandatory prison
term from 12 to 60 months, in 6-month increments. The court also stated to
Meadows that “it’s a tough decision” to decide to plea and he should discuss his
options with defense counsel, who was very experienced. (July 5, 2022, tr. 9.)
It was the court’s understanding that there is film of the incident, and
the court stated to Meadows that “that type of stuff weighs very heavily on a jury.”
(July 5, 2022, tr. 9.) The court further stated that Meadows faced nine charges, some
of which are mandatory consecutive so that could “add up to a lot of time.” (July 5,
2022, tr. 6.) The court also stated to Meadows that the “jury’s not going to see it the
same way you do. They just won’t” and, with all the charges, defense counsel “would
have to throw a no hitter here for there not to be some possible prison time, possibly
substantial time.” (July 5, 2022, tr. 6-7.) The court also advised Meadows, “I don’t
know what the charges are. You know, I don’t get into the plea too much because
that’s between you and the State, and I don’t want that to interfere with my
judgment. We’ll put the plea on the record in a second here, and I’ll step out while
it’s going on.” (July 5, 2022, tr. 8.)
After defense counsel and the state discussed the plea, the trial judge
then reentered the courtroom. Defense counsel advised the court that Meadows
wanted to resolve the matter through the state’s plea offer. The trial court then had
the following exchange with Meadows:
[COURT]: You wish to plea?
[MEADOWS]: Unfortunately.
[COURT]: Pardon me?
[MEADOWS]: Yes. Yes. Unfortunately, yes.
[COURT]: Well, you know, like I said before, you know, I wouldn’t
want to be in your situation. It’s a tough decision to make. I
understand that. But, you know, a decision needs to be made.
You can go to a jury, but, you know, they’re not going to see it your way.
I can guarantee you that. All right? Do you want to proceed, or do you
want to think about it?
[MEADOWS]: It’s either go to trial tomorrow or plead out today?
[COURT]: Uh-huh.
[MEADOWS]: Plead out today.
[COURT]: All right.
(July 5, 2022, tr. 11-12.)
The trial court then proceeded with the plea colloquy advising
Meadows of his rights in accordance with Crim.R. 11. While discussing his rights,
the court asked Meadows if he was satisfied with the services of his lawyer. Meadows
responded:
[MEADOWS]: I mean, I really didn’t * * * understand it all, to go
through all those charges, but it is what it is now. I’m at the end of the
road, so.
***
Because I was told something else at the beginning, before this, before
this case. I was told I wasn’t going to be pleading out to all these
charges. But it is what it is now. It’s either that or trial, so it’s like —
I’m not saying I’m forced to do it, but it’s basically like my [sic.] is to the
wall now, so.
[COURT]: Mr. Meadows, you know, there are no rabbits to be pulled
out of a hat here. All right? Do you understand what I mean?
[MEADOWS]: Yes, sir. Yes, Your Honor.
[COURT]: I don’t know all the facts here. * * * And there are no
miracles. * * * The plain reality is there are a lot of serious charges in
this case. You know, in this incident people were hurt. And, you know,
the police in the situation are driving this. This is a situation where you
should have given up and nothing like this would have happened.
Nothing like this would have happened. You would not have any of
these mandatory charges. You wouldn’t have had any of these charges
that were mandatory charges, if you would just given up.
[MEADOWS]: These charges could be run consecutive?
[COURT]: Yes. They could be. * * * I’m going to go through all that.
Because my job right now is to give you the worst possible thing that
can happen so that you know the worst possible thing that can happen
to you. You know, so that you can make a knowing and intelligent
decision. I don’t sugarcoat stuff. You know, I don’t just tell people the
least possible plea. I tell them the worst possible plea so you can have
a full understanding.
***
All right? Do you want to keep going? * * * I’m going to ask you some
questions again.
***
[COURT]: So are you satisfied with the services of your lawyer[?]
[MEADOWS]: Yes.
(July 5, 2022, tr. 17-20.)
Meadows pled guilty to six charges: an amended count of failure to
comply with forfeiture specifications (Count 1), an amended count of aggravated
vehicular assault with forfeiture specifications (Count 4), carrying a concealed
weapon with forfeiture specifications (Count 5), an amended count of trafficking
(Count 7), drug possession with a one-year firearm specification and forfeiture
specifications (Count 8), and an amended count of possessing criminal tools with
forfeiture specifications (Count 9). The remaining counts were nolled, and the
remaining firearm specifications were dismissed. The court found that the plea was
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made and referred Meadows to the
psychiatric clinic and the probation department for a presentence-investigation
report.
The matter resumed in August 2022 for the sentencing hearing. At
the hearing, the state recited the facts surrounding the incident and played the
officer’s dashcam video, over an objection by Meadows. The state also read letters
from the three victims. Defense counsel spoke on Meadows’s behalf. Meadows also
spoke to the court and apologized for his actions. The court then sentenced
Meadows to
a prison sentence at the Lorain Correctional Institution of 92 month(s).
Count 1: F3, 36 month(s), consecutive with count 4; up to 2 years of
PRC at the discretion of the parole board.
Count 4: F3, 36 month(s), (this is mandatory time); a mandatory
minimum 1 year, up to a maximum of 3 years.
Counts 5, 7: F4, 12 month(s), Counts 5 and 7 to run concurrent with
each other, but consecutive to Counts 1 and 4; up to 2 years of PRC at
the discretion of the parole board.
Count 7: F4, 12 month(s), Counts 5 and 7 to run concurrent with each
other, but consecutive to Counts 1 and 4; up to 2 years of PRC at the
discretion of the parole board.
Counts 8, 9: F5, 8 month(s), Counts 8 and 9 are to run concurrent with
each other but consecutive to Counts 1, 4, 5 and 7; up to 2 years of PRC
at the discretion of the parole board.
(Judgment Entry, Aug. 17, 2022.)
It is from this order that Meadows now appeals, raising the following
two assignments of error for review:
Assignment of Error One: Mr. Meadows’ 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.
Assignment of Error Two: The trial court erred when it overruled
defense counsel’s objection to the playing of the dashcam video at the
sentencing hearing.
II. Law and Analysis
A. Guilty Plea
In the first assignment of error, Meadows challenges his plea, arguing
that it was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made because trial court’s
participation in the plea-bargaining process undermined his decision and led him
to believe he would not have a fair trial. He argues that several of the court’s
statements, made on the eve of his jury trial, were improper and coerced him to
abandon his plan to take the case to trial.
It is well-established that for a defendant’s plea to be valid, it must be
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525,
527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). Although strongly discouraged by the Ohio Supreme
Court, a trial judge’s participation in plea negotiations does not render a defendant’s
plea invalid per se under the Ohio and United States Constitutions. State v. Byrd,
63 Ohio St.2d 288, 293, 407 N.E.2d 1384 (1980). Instead, “a trial judge’s
participation in the plea bargaining process must be carefully scrutinized to
determine if the judge’s intervention affected the voluntariness of the defendant’s
guilty plea.” Id. at 293. A plea should be found involuntary and unconstitutional “if
the judge’s active conduct could lead a defendant to believe he cannot get a fair trial
because the judge thinks that a trial is a futile exercise or that the judge would be
biased against him at trial.” Id. at 293-294.
Meadows, relying on Byrd, directs us to the following statements
made by the trial court, arguing that these statements indicated that the court would
be biased against him and felt that going to trial was a “futile exercise”: (1) “a jury’s
not going to see it the same way you do. They just won’t”; (2) “So your attorney
would have to throw a no hitter here for there not to be some possible prison time,
possibly substantial time”; (3) “they thought the jury would see it their way. And
they didn’t”; and (4) “You can go to a jury, but, you know, they’re not going to see it
your way. I can guarantee you that. All right?”
The state argues that Meadows is mislabeling the court’s legal
requirement to ensure that accurate information is conveyed so that he can fully
understand the consequences of his decision and enter a valid plea as “coercion.” In
support of its position, the state relies on State v. Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
107561, 2019-Ohio-2571, which cites to State v. Jabbaar, 2013-Ohio-1655, 991
N.E.2d 290 (8th Dist.). In Jones, the defendant argued that the trial court’s
participation in the plea-bargaining process undermined his decision and led him
to believe he would not obtain a fair trial. In Jones, the trial court stated that Jones
may not leave prison, depending upon the length of his jail time, and the trial court
assured Jones the victim would testify against him even though he could not say
what her testimony would be. Id. at ¶ 21-22.
We stated that while the trial court’s comments
are disquieting and the trial court’s participation is similar to the trial
court’s participation in the Jabbaar case in that such participation is
not the “preferred practice,” we do not look at the trial court’s
comments in isolation, but look at the record in its entirety to
determine the voluntariness of the guilty plea. Id. In reviewing the trial
court’s participation and the totality of the record, the trial court did
not create and present the plea offer and the prosecutor had input in
the plea offer.
Id. at ¶ 23. We found that in looking at the record in its entirety, the trial court’s
comments did not cause Jones to believe he would not receive a fair trial or a fair
sentence after trial. Id.
In Jabbaar, the defendant argued that the trial court’s discussion of
the evidence and the penalties attached to the counts coupled with his direct
recommendation that the defendant “should consider a plea” had a coercive effect
that rendered his plea involuntary. Id., 2013-Ohio-1655, 991 N.E.2d 290, at ¶ 24.
We recognized that the trial judge’s participation in Jabbaar was not the preferred
practice and that, in some instances, the trial judge’s comments raised concern. Id.
at ¶ 29. We found, however, that these comments must not be considered in
isolation. Id. “‘Instead, we consider the record in its entirety to determine the
voluntariness of the guilty plea.’” Id., quoting State v. Finroy, 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 09AP-795, 2010-Ohio-2067, ¶ 7.
The record in Jabbaar, 2013-Ohio-1655, 991 N.E.2d 290,
demonstrated that (1) the defendant was represented during all of the proceedings
by counsel, who actively participated on the defendant’s behalf; (2) the trial court
did not coerce or negotiate a plea agreement for the defendant; rather the trial court
insisted on the defendant taking additional time to consider the plea offer even after
the defendant expressed a possible change of heart in going to trial; and (3) telling
the defendant that he “should consider” the plea is not the same as telling him “to
take” the plea. Id. at ¶ 32-33. These factors, and the trial judge fully advising the
defendant of his constitutional rights so as to comply with Crim.R. 11, led this court
to determine the plea was not coerced. Id. at ¶ 35.
In Jabbaar, we distinguished Byrd, 63 Ohio St.2d 288, 293, 407
N.E.2d 1384, noting that the trial judge in Byrd
solicited private meetings with the defendant’s mother and sister and
encouraged them to pressure Byrd to enter a guilty plea, indicating to
them that Byrd would mostly likely get “the chair” if he went to trial.
After speaking with his relatives, Byrd met with the judge in chambers,
along with a sheriff’s deputy, a probation officer, and an assistant
prosecutor, where Byrd was neither provided counsel nor advised to
obtain counsel. The trial judge then negotiated a plea bargain with the
prosecutor, and, thereafter, informed Byrd that it was a “pretty good
deal.” Id. at 290. The trial judge also enlisted the aid of the deputy
sheriff, a friend of Byrd’s family, in convincing Byrd to plead guilty.
Id. at ¶ 30.
We likewise find the situation in Byrd distinguishable and find that
the instant case is analogous to Jabbaar and Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107561,
2019-Ohio-2571. Although the above comments by the trial court that Meadows
emphasizes are concerning, and the trial court’s participation is not the “preferred
practice,” we do not look at these comments in isolation, but look at the record in its
entirety to determine the voluntariness of the guilty plea.
Here, all of the trial court’s statements, but for the last statement,
were said while Meadows was discussing the mandatory nature of his sentence and
before the trial judge left the courtroom so that Meadows could discuss the plea. The
trial court did not coerce or negotiate a plea agreement; rather, the plea agreement
was brought to the court’s attention and the court’s statements were direct responses
to Meadows’s sentencing questions. The court acknowledged that “it’s a tough
decision” to decide to plea and encouraged Meadows to discuss the matter with
defense counsel, whom the court acknowledged was experienced. Prior to leaving
the courtroom, the trial judge advised Meadows that he does not get too involved
with the plea because that is between him and the state. The judge stated, “I don’t
want that to interfere with my judgment.” (July 5, 2022, tr. 8.). The trial judge then
left the courtroom while the terms of the plea were discussed by the parties.
This is not a situation where the trial court exerted pressure and
influence to induce a plea. Rather, the trial judge specifically told Meadows that “I
don’t sugarcoat stuff” and it is his job to give Meadows the worst possible thing that
can happen so that Meadows could make a knowing and intelligent decision. These
factors, and the trial judge fully advising Meadows of his constitutional rights in
compliance with Crim.R. 11, lead this court to determine Meadows’s plea was not
coerced.
Thus, after reviewing the trial court’s participation and considering
the totality of the record, we cannot say that the trial court’s involvement coerced
Meadows’s plea. The trial court’s comments taken in their entirety do not reveal a
belief by the court that a trial would be futile or that the judge would be biased
against Meadows at trial.
Accordingly, the first assignment of error is overruled.
B. Dashcam Video at Sentencing
In the second assignment of error, Meadows argues that the court
erred when it allowed the state to play the dashcam video of the police chase at
sentencing. Meadows contends that, under Evid.R. 403, the dashcam video
inflamed the passion of the trial court and impermissibly impacted his sentence.
We note that the rules of evidence do not apply at sentencing
hearings. State v. Echols, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104483, 2017-Ohio-1360, ¶ 9,
citing State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98934, 2013-Ohio-2201. The trial
court is permitted to consider any reliable evidence in the record when sentencing a
defendant. Williams at ¶ 18, citing State v. Hinton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84582,
2005-Ohio-3427; see also State v. Wagner, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109678, 2023-
Ohio-1215, ¶ 34.
Here, we find that the officer’s dashcam video of Meadows fleeing
from the police, crashing into two vehicles, and causing harm to three individuals is
reliable evidence that a trial court can consider at the time of sentencing. There is
no evidence in the record supporting Meadows’s contention that this video inflamed
the trial court and impermissibly impacted his sentence. Rather, at the sentencing
hearing, the court advised Meadows that it gave him 12 months in prison on the
fourth-degree felonies, when Meadows could have received 18 months on each
count, noting that “[w]hat [Meadows] did is extraordinarily serious. Do you
understand that? Anybody, anybody would look at this and say this is an
extraordinarily serious thing that you did.” (Aug. 12, 2022, tr. 63.) Thus, based on
the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not err when it allowed the state to play
the dashcam video.
The second assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
Meadows’s guilty plea was not invalid. While some of the trial court’s
comments are concerning and the trial court’s participation is not the “preferred
practice,” we do not look at these comments in isolation, but look at the record in its
entirety and find that Meadows’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily made. We further find that the dashcam video of Meadows fleeing from
the police, crashing into two vehicles, and causing harm to three individuals is
reliable evidence that a trial court could consider at the time of sentencing.
Accordingly, judgment is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant 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. The defendant’s
conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending is terminated. Case remanded to
the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR