State v. Williams ( 2018 )

[Cite as State v. Williams, 2018-Ohio-4237.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-17-1257
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201701743
v.
Shaqunia Williams DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: October 19, 2018
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Andrew J. Lastra and Laren Carpenter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys,
for appellee.
Patricia Horner, for appellant.
*****
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from an October 10, 2017 judgment of the Lucas County
Court of Common Pleas, finding appellant guilty on one amended count of child
endangerment, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Appellant was sentenced to, and served, a term of incarceration of 180 days. For the
reasons set forth below, this court affirms the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} Counsel for appellant has submitted a request to withdraw pursuant to
Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. In support of
the request, counsel states that, after reviewing the record of proceedings in the trial
court, she is unable to find arguable issues on appeal. In conformity with Anders, counsel
for appellant sets forth the following two proposed assignments of error:
I. APPELLANT COULD ASSERT HER PLEA WAS NOT
VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY OR WILLINGLY ENTERED INTO.
II. APPELLANT COULD ARGUE THE SENTENCE WAS
EXCESSIVE.
{¶ 3} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held that if counsel, after
conscientious examination of the case, believes any appeal to be wholly frivolous, they
should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744.
{¶ 4} The request to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief identifying
anything in the record that could arguably support an appeal. Id. Counsel must furnish
the client with a copy of the brief and the request to withdraw. Id. Once these
requirements have been satisfied, the appellate court then conducts a full examination of
the proceedings from below to determine if the appeal is frivolous. The appellate court
may grant counsel’s request withdraw and dismiss the appeal or may proceed to a
decision on the merits. Id.
2.
{¶ 5} Lastly, we note that this matter was filed prior to this court’s decision in
State v. Wenner, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-18-004, 2018-Ohio-2590, thereby enabling the
case to proceed pursuant to the Anders filing given that it was filed prior to this court’s
decision announcing a discontinuation of Anders for case review purposes.
{¶ 6} The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. Appellant was
the legal custodian of two minor children and was pursuing the adoption of the children
through the Lucas County Children’s Services Board (“CSB”).
{¶ 7} Subsequent to taking legal custody of the children from CSB and beginning
the adoption process, appellant knowingly gave physical custody of the children to
another party whom was not legally entitled to the children.
{¶ 8} Notably, appellant was aware that the person had previously lost physical
custody of a minor son and was aware of the presence of a severe drug addict residing in
the home in which she placed the children.
{¶ 9} Subsequent to appellant placing the children in the above-described high risk
environment, the adult with whom the children were then living severely abused and
neglected the children, ultimately causing the death of one of the two children, a four-
year old girl.
{¶ 10} As conveyed by the trial court, “The facts in this case are stomach
churning. They reveal the most horrific abuse * * * That child was bruised from the tip
of her toe to the top of her head. That child was burned. That child was put in a dog cage
* * * Physical, mental torture * * * So tiny from not being properly fed that she was in
the one percentile.”
3.
{¶ 11} On August 28, 2017, appellant entered a negotiated plea to one count of
child endangerment, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Appellant was sentenced to a 180-day term of incarceration. This appeal ensued.
{¶ 12} Prior to the potential consideration of the proposed assignments of error,
we must first consider the propriety of appellee’s chief assertion on appeal that the appeal
itself is moot under the facts and circumstances of this case.
{¶ 13} The record reflects appellant was ultimately convicted of a misdemeanor
level offense. The record further reflects that appellant served the entirety of the
sentence, did not request a stay of execution from the trial court, and presented no
evidence of any collateral legal disability, such as being subject to a statutorily mandated
registration requirement.
{¶ 14} This court has consistently recognized that under the above-described
circumstances, a case on appeal is rendered moot. In a recent criminal appeal similarly
involving a misdemeanor conviction in which appellant had already served the entirety of
the sentence, this court held, “[W]e note that appellant failed to request a stay of his
sentence in the trial court. Further, appellant failed to argue the existence of a collateral
disability.” State v. Carter, 6th Dist. L-16-1099, 2017-Ohio-2898, ¶ 8. Accordingly, we
determined that, “[A]ppellant’s appeal is moot and his assignments of error are not well-
taken.” Carter, at ¶ 9. Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
{¶ 15} Likewise, in the instant case, we find that the record shows that appellant,
who has served the full sentence, failed to request a stay of execution of the sentence in
the trial court and did not demonstrate a resulting collateral disability. As such, we find
4.
the appeal to be moot and the assignments of error to be not well-taken. Appellant’s
counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
{¶ 16} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas is hereby affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal
pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
_______________________________
Christine E. Mayle, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
5.