Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas Case No. CR-16-605771-A
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Steve W. Canfil
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: Andrew T. Gatti Anne Mikhaiel Assistant
BEFORE: Kilbane, P.J., Boyle, J., and Keough, J.
EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE
Defendant-appellant, Ronald J. Reed ("Reed"),
appeals from his convictions for attempted felonious assault,
abduction, and domestic violence. For the reasons set forth
below, we affirm.
In May 2016, Reed was charged with one count each of
felonious assault, abduction, and domestic violence. These
charges arose out of a physical altercation with his
In August 2016, Reed pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement with the state, to attempted felonious assault,
abduction, and domestic violence. At the outset of the plea
hearing, the assistant county prosecutor outlined the
state's plea offer. Reed's defense counsel then
explained that he "had numerous, numerous conversations
with [Reed] regarding the plea," and it was his opinion
that "[Reed will] make a knowing, intelligent and
voluntary change of plea."
The trial court then asked Reed if he had heard and
understood the plea offer. In response, Reed was reluctant:
[REED]: I think. I think so.
THE COURT: Was there anything that you have a question about?
[REED]: The situation that happened at my residence, just
that I don't know what my rights was [sic]. You know,
when I asked her to leave, she wouldn't leave. I
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, if I might clarify, many times Mr.
Reed and I have talked about his potential defenses of
self-defense, and being at his own property at the time this
event occurred and we've talked about that a lot. And he
understands in my opinion, that by entering this plea,
we're not going to be talking about self-defense anymore.
[REED]: No, I don't, sir.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Or defense of property or anything along
Next, the trial court asked Reed how far he went in school,
to which Reed replied, "[n]ot far because I have
learning disabilities." In response to further
questioning, Reed replied that he went as far in school as
sixth or seventh grade, could read and write, and that he was
satisfied with defense counsel's representation. The
trial court then advised Reed of the constitutional rights he
would waive by entering a guilty plea, and Reed acknowledged
that he understood he was giving up these rights. The trial
court further advised Reed of the possible penalties for the
charges outlined in the plea agreement as well as postrelease
control. Reed replied that he understood each of these
After the trial court read the charges in the amended
indictment, Reed again interjected, asking to comment. The
trial court instructed Reed to speak with counsel, allowing a
short recess off the record. After the recess, defense
counsel explained Reed's concern about the abduction
count, and his own belief that this offense would likely
merge with the attempted felonious assault conviction for
purposes of sentencing. The state agreed these offenses would
merge at sentencing.
The trial court then continued on with the plea colloquy, and
accepted Reed's guilty plea to the amended indictment.
The trial court referred Reed to the probation department for
a presentence investigation report ("PSI"), and set
the matter for sentencing. At sentencing, the trial court
determined that Count 1 (attempted felonious assault) and
Count 2 (abduction) constituted allied offenses of similar
import that merged for purposes of sentencing. The state
elected to proceed on Count 1. The trial court sentenced Reed
to two years of community control sanctions for Counts 1 and
In June 2017, Reed moved this court, pro se, for leave to
file a delayed appeal and for appointment of appellate
counsel. We granted Reed leave to file a delayed appeal and
appointed him counsel.
In September 2016, Reed's original appellate counsel
filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493
(1967) ("[I]f counsel finds his case to be wholly
frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should
so advise the court and request permission to withdraw."
Id. at 744). Our independent review of the record
found that "a nonfrivolous issue exists regarding the
knowing nature of Reed's guilty plea." Accordingly,
we granted original appellate counsel's motion to
withdraw, but we declined to dismiss Reed's appeal,
appointed him new counsel, and ordered this case returned to
the active docket for briefing.
Reed now raises the following two assignments of error for
Assignment of Error One
The trial court violated [Reed's] federal and state
constitutional rights to due process of law and Crim.R. 11
when it accepted [Reed's] guilty plea.
Assignment of Error Two
[Reed] was deprived of his federal and state constitutional
rights to effective assistance of counsel.
In the first assignment of error, Reed challenges the
validity of his guilty plea, arguing that the record
demonstrates that he did not ...