Opinion
No. 98218
07-02-2013
STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. ALI JABBAAR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
FOR APPELLANT Ali Jabbaar, pro se ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Brent C. Kirvel Assistant County Prosecutor
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Case No. CR-551246
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 465911
FOR APPELLANT Ali Jabbaar, pro se
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Brent C. Kirvel
Assistant County Prosecutor
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J.:
{¶1} On June 18, 2013, the applicant, Ali Jabbaar, pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992), applied to reopen this court's judgment in State v. Jabbaar, 8th Dist. No. 98218, 2013-Ohio-1655, in which this court affirmed Jabbaar's convictions for one count of kidnapping with a three-year firearm specification and sexual motivation specification and one count of rape. Jabbaar maintains that his appellate counsel should have argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. For the following reasons, this court denies the application to reopen.
{¶2} In June 2011, the grand jury indicted Jabbaar on one count of kidnapping with a sexual motivation specification, and three counts of rape with sexually violent predator specifications, all with one- and three-year firearm specifications. In January 2012, Jabbaar moved to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. In February 2012, Jabbaar accepted a plea bargain under which he pleaded guilty to one count of kidnapping with a three-year firearm specification and a sexual motivation specification and one count of rape; all the other counts and specifications were nolled. The judge sentenced him to 13 years in prison.
{¶3} On appeal, Jabbaar's counsel argued that the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made because the judge coerced the plea by improper participation in the plea bargaining. This court rejected that argument and affirmed. Jabbaar now argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective because he should have raised the speedy trial argument that Jabbaar was in jail for more than 90 days, and the continuances were improper because Jabbaar did not consent to them.
{¶4} In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the applicant must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 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 768 (1990); and State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534, 660 N.E.2d 456 (1996).
{¶5} In the present case, appellate counsel properly rejected arguing speedy trial violations. In State v. Kelly, 57 Ohio St.3d 127, 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a plea of guilty effectively waives all appealable errors, unless such errors are shown to have precluded the defendant from voluntarily entering into the plea. Montpelier v. Greeno, 25 Ohio St.3d 170, 495 N.E.2d 581 (1986). In both Kelly and Greeno, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that a guilty plea foreclosed the right to assert on appeal the issue of the denial of a speedy trial. Thus, Jabbaar does not establish a genuine issue as to the effectiveness of appellate counsel.
{¶6} Accordingly, this court denies the application to reopen. _______________
MARY J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR