YOUNGSTOWN, OH — Convicted federal felon Michael Leon Smedley is currently incarcerated in the Mahoning County Justice Center awaiting his May 5, 2026, sentencing before U.S. District Court Judge Donald C. Nugent.
The man who once threatened to hit East Cleveland’s then 70-year-old former Clerk of Council in the head, now wears an orange jumpsuit in a mug shot. Their encounter came after the Clerk of Council told a resident not to pay the illegal automatic traffic camera citations convicted ex-Mayor Brandon King violated a council resolution to keep issuing.
Smedley’s white beard is unkempt. His eyes, in the mug shot taken after his conviction, are red. The redness could be from sleeplessness, grief, or living daily with the weight of what comes next. I can’t say. He appears, in his mug shot, like a man who has run out of hope.
Smedley was born October 1, 1968. He is 57 years old. And he has a lot of time to think about the text messages and emails he created and shared with the Al Zubair brothers that federal prosecutors shared with a jury in January.
He has time to think about the FBI agents who built a case against him one digital thread at a time. Time to think about the choices he made – not just the acts that brought him here, but the strategic decisions he made in 2009 that sealed his future when he decided to use stolen private property to help convicted ex-Mayor Gary Alexander Norton, Jr. win an election. Smedley wanted to call himself “chief of staff” to an East Cleveland mayor at any cost.
Today, Smedley has a different set of questions to ask, besides how much time Judge Nugent is sentencing him to prison. Chief among the questions he should be asking himself is why he used convicted ex-mayor Brandon King’s attorney. And why, when the government offered opportunities for cooperation before the trial, he did he not use or may not have been advised to use the evidence prosecutors possessed that bore King’s name to negotiate a deal that might have spared him years of his life?
Smedley’s mug shot depicts the face of a man haunted by the walls of his jail cell in Mahoning County, where he has been held with other men since January 28, 2026, the day a federal jury convicted him on all five corruption counts he faced. Since then, Smedley’s day has consisted of morning, afternoon and night head counts, 3 meals, recreation time, library time, phone time and days spent in deep conversations with the other two men in his pod.
Smedley’s sentencing is scheduled for May 5, 2026, before Judge Nugent. Between now and then, the U.S. Probation Office will complete a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) that will calculate his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. His attorney – assuming he remains represented by Charles Tyler Sr. – may file objections to the PSR and submit sentencing memoranda arguing for a downward variance. The odds are not in his favor.
Smedley faces significant statutory maximums for the counts against him. Count 26 (Conspiracy). Up to 5 years. Counts 27 and 29 (Bribery). Up to 10 years each. Counts 31 and 32 (Fraud and Extortion Conspiracies). Up to 20 years each.
While the statutory maximums exceed 50 years, the actual sentence will be driven by the statutory sentencing guidelines. Factors likely to affect Smedley’s Guidelines calculation include the level of his offenses, his role in the offenses, acceptance of responsibility, criminal history and obstruction of justice. He wasn’t charged with obstruction.
Because Smedley chose a trial rather than plead guilty, he will receive no reduction for acceptance of responsibility. That alone adds two or three levels to guideline calculations — typically the equivalent of years of additional prison time. His convictions for bribery, honest services fraud, and extortion carry high base offense levels. And while he may argue that his role was minor compared to the Al Zubair brothers, or even King who was mentioned but not on trial, the jury’s verdict suggests they found him fully culpable for the counts he faced.
The government, represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Matthew W. Shepherd and Joseph H. Walsh, will likely recommend a sentence within the guidelines range. Given the scale of the case and the public interest in deterring corruption, they are unlikely to recommend leniency. As East Cleveland’s former mayor, clerk of council and twice a mayor’s chief of staff who had recent access to thousands of pages of King administration records, the scope of Smedley’s criminal effect on the city was profound. From first-hand experience I say with confidence that city hall was a criminal enterprise.
Judge Nugent, who presided over the trial and heard all the evidence, has already denied Smedley’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal — a strong indication that he found the government’s case sufficient. That does not bode well for a lenient sentence.
In retrospect, Smedley may now be questioning his decision to use Tyler, whose familiarity and participation with the East Cleveland corruption landscape did not give him an advantage. It did tie Smedley, in the minds of jurors and prosecutors, to the very culture of corruption that King embodied. He should be asking if Tyler’s defense strategy, whatever it was, served his own interests, or did it reflect a playbook designed for a different client?
Smedley’s defense was notable for what Tyler did not file to protect him. No pretrial motions to suppress evidence, no motions to dismiss, no challenges to the government’s case before trial. While the Al Zubair brothers used artificial intelligence to file dozens of motions -some successful, many denied – Smedley through Tyler filed none. His case went to trial without a single substantive challenge to the government’s evidence. He has nothing to appeal.
It is no secret that King was a named participant in the acts federal agents investigated. Smedley, by virtue of his close relationship with King, who allowed him to make decisions for him, was involved with all the players in King’s business, social and political circles. He possesses information that could have been valuable to prosecutors.
In federal criminal law practice, cooperation is often the path to leniency. Defendants who provide substantial assistance to the government – particularly against higher-level targets – can receive downward departures from sentencing guidelines, sometimes dramatically reducing their exposure. The government’s motion for a downward departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines section 5K1.1 can mean the difference between a 10-year and a 3-year prison sentence.
Smedley, however, did not cooperate. He did not plead guilty. He did not offer evidence against King or any of their shared associates and land bank transfer dealings. He chose to go to trial, alone, without the benefit of a cooperation agreement, without the protection of a plea deal, and without any visible pretrial strategy to weaken the government’s case.
In exchange for his silence, Smedley should have money his “associates” voluntarily place on the books for his use while incarcerated. At least while they’re still free.
King is free, for now, as federal investigators begin to examine how more than $26 million in federal American Rescue Plan Act funds were distributed to his designated recipients. He’s made no restitution to East Cleveland in compliance with his sentence from his conviction last year. Observers who’ve seen him recently say he’s lost weight.
It will be interesting to see if he’s ever federally charged what strategy he’ll use in his defense. City hall workers I interacted with described Smedley as the “brains” behind the schemes that corrupted the municipal government.
If King is ever criminally charged in federal court, will that be his story?
