Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-15-600229-A
Application for Reopening Motion No. 513129
APPELLANT Hakeen Makin, pro se.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: Frank Romeo Zeleznikar Assistant County
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.
Hakeen Makin has filed a timely application for reopening
pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Makin is attempting to reopen the
appellate judgment rendered in State v.
Makin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104545,
2017-Ohio-7882, that affirmed his convictions and sentence
for the offenses of failure to comply and felonious assault
of a peace officer. We decline to reopen Makin's appeal.
In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel, Makin is required to establish that the
performance of his appellate counsel was deficient and the
deficiency resulted in prejudice. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674
(1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538
N.E.2d 373 (1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1011, 110
S.Ct. 3258, 111 L.Ed.2d 767 (1990).
In Strickland, the United States Supreme Court held
that a court's scrutiny of an attorney's work must be
highly deferential. The court further stated that it is all
too tempting for a defendant to second-guess his attorney
after conviction and that it would be too easy for a court to
conclude that a specific act or omission was deficient,
especially when examining the matter in hindsight. Thus, 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.
Herein, Makin raises three proposed assignments of error in
support of his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel. Makin's first proposed assignment of error is
The trial court committed error and denied appellant his
rights under the constitutions of the United States and Ohio
when it "abused its discretion", and wrongfully
denied appellant his right to disqualify his trial counsel
Makin, through his first proposed assignment of error, argues
that the trial court erred by failing to grant his request to
remove appointed counsel. In State v. Makin,
supra, this court held that:
Here, Makin requested that his appointed counsel be removed.
The trial court conducted a hearing on Makin's request. A
review of the hearing reveals that the court gave ample
consideration to Makin's indications of his intent to
self-represent. The trial court stated that it would give him
a copy to read of the colloquy it must go through to
determine if Makin could be his own attorney. The court
"I'm not trying to talk you out of it. It's none
of my business. There are some things that some people who
want to represent themselves, that it sounds so good and
glorious and maybe they saw a movie of where somebody
represented themselves and did real well, et cetera, but
there are some pitfalls. It might be good for you to read
this colloquy so you'll know exactly the kind of
questions the Court is going to be asking you and it gives
you some time to think about it."
The court then set the matter for a hearing contingent upon
Makin's indication to the court that he wished to proceed
pro se. This matter, however, was not raised again by Makin,
and he proceeded to trial with appointed counsel.
The foregoing record does not support Makin's assertion
that the trial court denied him of his right to
self-representation. Rather, it indicates that the trial
court advised Makin of his options and set the ...