Opinion
No. 105217
04-06-2018
STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. BRADLEY L. BRADFORD DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
FOR APPELLANT Bradley L. Bradford, pro se Inmate No. 691692 Trumbull Correctional Institution P.O. Box 901 Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Frank Romeo Zeleznikar Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-15-600941-A
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 514111 FOR APPELLANT Bradley L. Bradford, pro se
Inmate No. 691692
Trumbull Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 901
Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O'Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Frank Romeo Zeleznikar
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113 LARRY A. JONES, SR., J.:
{¶1} On January 23, 2018, the applicant, Bradley L. Bradford, pursuant to App.R. 26(B), applied to reopen this court's judgment in State v. Bradford, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105217, 2017-Ohio-8481, in which this court affirmed his convictions for participating in a criminal gang, felonious assault, two counts of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, improperly discharging a firearm into a habitation, improperly discharging a firearm on or near prohibited premises, and having weapons while under disability, but reversed the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences on the three-year firearm specifications underlying one of the counts of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle and the count for discharging a firearm into a habitation, and remanded for resentencing. Bradford now submits that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not also arguing that the trial court erred by sentencing him to consecutive terms for the three-year firearm specification and the five-year firearm specification for discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle that were included with the charge for firing into a habitation. The state of Ohio filed its brief in opposition on February 6, 2018.
{¶2} R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a) requires that such firearm specifications be served consecutively. State v. Hooks, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88713, 2007-Ohio-5944. Thus, appellate counsel properly declined to raise a meritless argument.
{¶3} Accordingly, this court denies the application to reopen. /s/_________
LARRY A. JONES, SR., JUDGE ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J., and
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR