Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-15-594103-A
Application for Reopening Motion No. 509162
APPELLANT Hakeen Makin.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: Daniel T. Van Assistant County
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
LASTER MAYS, JUDGE
Hakeen Makin has filed a timely application for reopening
pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Makin seeks to reopen the appellate
judgment rendered in State v. Makin, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 104010, 2017-Ohio-2649, that affirmed his
convictions and sentence for multiple drug-related offenses.
For the reasons that follow, we decline to reopen Makin's
Standard of Review
The appropriate standard to determine whether a defendant has
received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is the
two-pronged analysis found in Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80
L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). State v. Were, 120 Ohio St.3d
85, 2008-Ohio-5277, 896 N.E.2d 699, ¶ 10. Applicant
"must prove that his counsel [was] deficient for failing
to raise the issues he now presents and that there was a
reasonable probability of success had he presented those
claims on appeal." Id., quoting State v.
Sheppard, 91 Ohio St.3d 329, 330, 744 N.E.2d 770 (2001).
Applicant "bears the burden of establishing that there
was a 'genuine issue' as to whether he has a
'colorable claim' of ineffective assistance of
counsel on appeal." State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio
St.3d 24, 25, 701 N.E.2d 696 (1998).
In Strickland, the United States Supreme Court ruled
that judicial scrutiny of an attorney's work must be
highly deferential. The court noted that it is all too
tempting for a defendant to second-guess his lawyer after
conviction and that it would be all too easy for a court,
examining an unsuccessful defense in hindsight, to conclude
that a particular act or omission was deficient. Therefore,
a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's
conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable
professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome
the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged
action "might be considered sound trial strategy."
Strickland at 689.
With this standard in mind, we turn to the arguments raised
by Makin. \
Arguments Not Meritorious
Makin raises three proposed assignments of error in support
of his application to reopen his direct appeal. Having
reviewed the arguments in light of the record, we hold that
Makin cannot satisfy either prong of the Strickland
test. We must, therefore, deny the application on the merits.
1.Imposition of ...