State v. Meeks , 2023 Ohio 988 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Meeks, 2023-Ohio-988.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2022-A-0060
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
MATTHEW JAMES MEEKS,
Trial Court No. 2021 CR 00351
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: March 27, 2023
Judgment: Affirmed
Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson,
OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Michael J. Ledenko, Assistant Public Defender, 22 East Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH
44047 (For Defendant-Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Matthew James Meeks, appeals from his conviction
and sentence for Aggravated Robbery in the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas.
For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.
{¶2} On August 26, 2021, Meeks was indicted by the Ashtabula County Grand
Jury for Attempted Robbery, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and
R.C. 2911.02(A)(2); and Aggravated Robbery, a felony of the first degree, in violation of
R.C. 2911.01(A)(3).
{¶3} On October 26, 2021, Meeks filed a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
The court ordered a forensic evaluation to determine the issues of competence and sanity
and a second evaluation pursuant to Meeks’ request. A competency and sanity hearing
was held on May 10, 2022, and the court found that Meeks understood the nature and
objectives of the proceedings, was capable of assisting in his defense, and, at the time
the offenses occurred, knew the wrongfulness of his acts. He was found “Competent and
Sane to Stand Trial.”
{¶4} On May 12, 2022, a Written Plea of Guilty and Plea Agreement was filed.
Meeks entered a plea of guilty to Aggravated Robbery as charged in the indictment and
the Attempted Robbery charge was dismissed. The State indicated that the crime
occurred when Meeks went to a car wash, demanded money from the owner, threatened
to kill him, and hit him in the head.
{¶5} At the plea hearing, the court inquired whether Meeks was able to read,
write, and understand the English language, to which he responded that he could read
but has “trouble understanding.” The court informed him that it would provide him
additional time to speak with his attorneys as needed during the plea hearing. The court
explained to Meeks the potential term of incarceration. Meeks consulted with his
attorneys and then indicated he understood the potential penalties. The court advised
Meeks of the rights waived by his entry of a guilty plea. The court determined that the
plea was entered voluntarily, that Meeks understood the rights being waived, and
accepted his guilty plea.
{¶6} A sentencing hearing was held on June 29, 2022, at which defense counsel
observed that Meeks had a prior criminal record but “only four of those convictions are
for crimes of violence or crimes of aggression” and that the rest related to substance
2
Case No. 2022-A-0060
abuse and mental health concerns. Counsel emphasized a history of abuse Meeks
suffered and noted his mental illness. Meeks apologized for his actions and explained
that he had committed the crimes while suffering from mental health conditions and
following his mother’s death. The victim explained that he suffered injuries to his nose
and eye and detailed the stress caused to him by the event. The State recommended a
sentence of ten years in prison. The court observed that Meeks had a history of
misdemeanor offenses and had not responded favorably to sanctions in the past. It noted
the victim’s statements regarding physical and psychological harm. It also observed that
Meeks had apologized for his actions. Meeks was ordered to serve an indefinite term of
10 to 15 years in prison and pay restitution in the amount of $1,561.41. This sentence
was memorialized in a June 30, 2022 Judgment Entry.
{¶7} On December 9, 2022, appellate counsel filed Meeks’ appellate brief,
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Counsel represented that he had reviewed the record, found “no meritorious issues” upon
which to base an appeal, and moved to withdraw. This court granted Meeks 30 days in
which “to file his own submission, if he so chooses, which raises any arguments in support
of the appeal.” Appellate counsel’s request to withdraw was held in abeyance. Meeks
has not filed any further brief or memorandum in support of his appeal.
{¶8} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court outlined the proper steps to be
followed in this situation: “if counsel finds his client’s case to be wholly frivolous, counsel
should advise the court and request permission to withdraw; * * * the request to withdraw
must be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably
support the appeal; * * * counsel should furnish the indigent client with a copy of counsel’s
3
Case No. 2022-A-0060
brief, and time must be allowed for the client to raise any points he chooses.” State v.
Spears, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0027, 2014-Ohio-2695, ¶ 5, citing Anders at
744. The appellate court must conduct “a full examination of all the proceedings, to
decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders at 744. “Only after this separate
inquiry, and only after the appellate court finds no nonfrivolous issue for appeal, may the
court proceed to consider the appeal on the merits without the assistance of
counsel.” Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988).
Accordingly, we will proceed to conduct a review of the record, pursuant to Anders.
{¶9} In his brief, counsel raises one potential area for review which may arguably
support the appeal: “The trial court erred in imposing a prison sentence greater than the
minimum available sentence on defendant-appellant, Matthew J. Meeks.” Counsel
concludes this error lacks merit.
{¶10} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.11(A), “[a] court that sentences an offender for a
felony shall be guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing,” and it “shall
consider the factors * * * relating to the seriousness of the conduct” and “to the likelihood
of the offender’s recidivism.” R.C. 2929.12(A).
{¶11} In hearing an appeal of felony sentences, the appellate court reviews the
record and “may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under
this section or may vacate the sentence and remand * * * if it clearly and convincingly
finds * * * [t]hat the sentence is * * * contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). A sentence
is contrary to law when it is “in violation of statute or legal regulations” or it is imposed
“based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to those [seriousness and
recidivism factors] that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones, 163
4
Case No. 2022-A-0060
Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 34; State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d
250, 2022-Ohio-1878, 198 N.E.3d 68, ¶ 22.
{¶12} “Trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the
statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for
imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences.” State v. Foster,
109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, paragraph seven of the syllabus; State
v. Vieira, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2021-L-110, 2022-Ohio-1636, ¶ 12. There is no mandate
for judicial fact-finding but the court “is merely to ‘consider’ the statutory factors” contained
in R.C. 2929.11 and .12. Foster at ¶ 42.
{¶13} Here, the court sentenced Meeks to a term that was permissible under the
statutory range for a felony of the first degree, which provides that the prison term shall
be an indefinite term with a minimum range of three to eleven years. R.C.
2929.14(A)(1)(a). His sentence of ten years was within this rage. The court stated that
it considered the purposes and principles of sentencing as well as the seriousness and
recidivism factors. It was not required to make specific findings to justify the fact that the
sentence was more than the minimum, although it did note Meeks’ record of
misdemeanor offenses, that he had not been law-abiding in recent years, his failure to
respond favorably to past sanctions, and the impact of the offense on the victim. Further,
the record does not demonstrate the court considered extraneous factors in reaching its
sentence. We find no error in Meeks’ sentence of 10 to 15 years for Aggravated Robbery.
State v. Manyo, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A-0058, 2023-Ohio-267, ¶ 19 (the “trial
court’s exercise of its discretion in imposing these terms was not contrary to law inasmuch
as the sentences were statutorily authorized and were not based on factors or
5
Case No. 2022-A-0060
considerations extraneous to those set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12”).
{¶14} There is also no meritorious issue relating to the fact that Meeks was
sentenced pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law, S.B 201, which allows for indefinite prison
terms for first- and second-degree felonies. R.C. 2929.14(A)(1) and (2). This court has
consistently rejected challenges to the constitutionality of Reagan Tokes, including those
relating to due process, separation of powers, and the right to a fair hearing. State v.
Reffitt, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2021-L-129, 2022-Ohio-3371; State v. Joyce, 2022-Ohio-
3370, 197 N.E.3d 612 (11th Dist.).
{¶15} A further review of the record reveals no other meritorious issues for review,
including the entry and acceptance of Meeks’ plea.
{¶16} Prior to the entry of Meeks’ guilty plea, he entered a written plea of not guilty
by reason of insanity, underwent competency evaluations, and the court found that he
was competent to stand trial and understood the wrongfulness of his acts at the time of
the crime. We do not find any meritorious issues for review in relation to the NGRI plea.
{¶17} As this court and others have held, “[a] guilty plea waives any argument
concerning an insanity defense.” State v. Crew, 11th Dist. Portage Nos. 2021-P-0028, et
al., 2022-Ohio-752, ¶ 28; State v. Pepper, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2013-CA-6, 2014-Ohio-
3841, ¶ 6 (a “guilty plea constituted an implied admission of sanity, and the trial court’s
acceptance of the plea was an affirmation of its belief in [defendant’s] sanity”).
{¶18} As to the issue of competency, “a trial court does not abuse its discretion in
finding a defendant competent where its findings of competency are supported by some
reliable, credible evidence.” State v. Spurrier, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-069, 2021-
Ohio-1061, ¶ 42. “The constitutional standard for assessing a defendant’s competency
6
Case No. 2022-A-0060
to enter a guilty plea is the same as that for determining his competency to stand trial.”
State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347, 2016-Ohio-5487, 71 N.E.3d 180, ¶ 56. A
defendant must have “‘sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a
reasonable degree of rational understanding’” and “‘a rational as well as factual
understanding of the proceedings against him.’” Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396,
113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993), quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402,
80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960).
{¶19} Here, the court relied on the evaluations conducted in determining that
Meeks was competent to stand trial. The evaluations support this finding and
demonstrate that he was able to understand the proceedings and consult with his
attorney. Thus, he was also competent to enter a plea of guilty.
{¶20} Further, a review of the plea hearing proceedings support this conclusion
and reveal that his plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. See State v. Zachery, 5th
Dist. Stark No. 2004CA00091, 2004-Ohio-6282, ¶ 21 (defendant’s competence to enter
a guilty plea was supported by his actions in executing a change of plea form and
expression that he understood his rights during the plea hearing). The court complied
with the requirements of Crim.R. 11 in accepting the plea. State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d
239, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 29 (“[t]he best way to ensure that pleas are
entered knowingly and voluntarily is to simply follow the requirements of Crim.R.11 when
deciding whether to accept a plea agreement”).
{¶21} Pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2), when a defendant pleads guilty to a felony
offense, the trial court must address the defendant personally and inform him of his
constitutional and non-constitutional rights prior to accepting his plea. The court was
7
Case No. 2022-A-0060
required to inform Meeks of the effect of a guilty plea and that the court may proceed to
judgment and sentencing, which it did in compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b). Further,
the court was required to inform him of the waiver of the rights to a jury trial, to confront
witnesses, to summon witnesses, not to be compelled to testify, and to have the state
prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). The transcript indicates
the court advised Meeks of each of these rights and he indicated his understanding of
such rights. The court explained the charges and potential sentences faced by Meeks,
as required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), including the indefinite nature of the sentence. The
court inquired whether Meeks needed to speak to counsel about this, Meeks responded
affirmatively, and he was given the chance to consult with counsel. He then indicated his
understanding of these rights. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the plea was
not entered knowingly and voluntarily or without proper advisement of Meeks’ rights.
{¶22} Finally, we find no error as to the order of restitution. R.C.
2929.18(A)(1) provides that financial sanctions for a felony may include: “Restitution by
the offender to the victim of the offender’s crime * * * in an amount based on the victim’s
economic loss.” “‘Economic loss’ means any economic detriment suffered by a victim as
a direct and proximate result of the commission of an offense.” R.C. 2929.01(L). Here,
the victim explained that Meeks’ attack, which occurred while he was working at his car
wash filling the auto cashier machines, caused him to lose the keys to those machines,
resulting in the expense of redrilling the locks. We find no error in this order of restitution.
{¶23} Having thus duly conducted an independent review of the record, we
conclude that the present appeal is wholly frivolous and there are no arguable issues
necessitating the appointment of new counsel. Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is granted
8
Case No. 2022-A-0060
and the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
concur.
9
Case No. 2022-A-0060