State v. Parrish , 2013 Ohio 5622 ( 2013 )

[Cite as State v. Parrish, 2013-Ohio-5622.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
WILLIAM V. PARRISH, III
Defendant-Appellant
Appellate Case No. 25599
Trial Court Case No. 2012-CR-2877
(Criminal Appeal from
(Common Pleas Court)
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 20th day of December, 2013.
...........
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts
Building, P.O. Box 972, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
J. DAVID TURNER, Atty. Reg. No. 0017456, P.O. Box 291771, Kettering, Ohio 45429
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
WILLIAM V. PARRISH, III, Inmate No. 676-497, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, P.O. Box
7010, Chillicothe , Ohio 45601
Defendant-Appellant
.............
2
WELBAUM, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, William V. Parrish, III, appeals from his conviction and
sentence on one count of Felonious Assault following a jury trial. Appellate counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967),
wherein he recites that he has found no potential assignments of error having arguable merit.
We have performed our duty, under Anders, to review the record independently, and we also find
no potential assignments of error having arguable merit.
{¶ 2} Parrish was indicted by the Montgomery County Grand Jury on one count of
Felonious Assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a felony of the second degree. The charge
arose from Parrish beating and seriously injuring a fellow bar patron in the restroom of Shag’s
Tavern on South Smithville Road in Dayton, Ohio. Parrish pled not guiltily to the charge, and
the matter was tried before a jury. The jury found Parrish guilty as charged.
{¶ 3} During Parrish’s sentencing, the trial court considered the seriousness and
recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12. The court found that Parrish had caused serious physical
harm to the victim, and that he had a prior criminal record. Specifically, Parrish had been
convicted of Aggravated Robbery, a first-degree felony, and Felonious Assault, a second
degree-felony, in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Case No. 2005-CR-4319. Pursuant
to R.C. 2929.13(F) and 2929.14(A)(2), the trial court sentenced Parrish to a mandatory prison
term of seven years.
{¶ 4} Parrish has appealed his conviction and sentence. His appellate counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, stating that he can
find no potential assignments of error having arguable merit. By entry filed on July 16, 2013,
3
Parrish was advised that an Anders brief had been filed on his behalf, and he was given 60 days
from that date to file his own pro se brief. He has not filed a pro se brief.
{¶ 5} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held that if counsel does a
conscientious examination of the case and determines an appeal to be frivolous, counsel should
advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744. Counsel must also give the
appellant a copy of the brief along with the request to withdraw. Id. The appellant must be
given sufficient time to raise any matters he so chooses. Id. After those requirements are
satisfied, the appellate court must conduct a thorough examination of the proceedings to
determine if the appeal is actually frivolous. Id. A frivolous appeal is “one that presents issues
lacking in arguable merit.” State v. Marbury, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19226,
2003-Ohio-3242, ¶ 8. “An issue lacks arguable merit if, on the facts and law involved, no
responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis for reversal.” (Citation omitted.) Id.
If the appellate court determines the appeal is frivolous, it may then grant counsel's request to
withdraw and then dismiss the appeal without violating any constitutional requirements, or the
court can proceed to a decision on the merits if state law requires it. Anders at 744.
{¶ 6} In this case, the requirements in Anders have been satisfied. After conducting a
thorough, independent review of the proceedings, we found no potential assignments of error
having arguable merit. Accordingly, Parrish’s appeal is wholly frivolous, and the judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.
.............
FROELICH and HALL, JJ., concur.
4
Copies mailed to:
Mathias H. Heck
Carley J. Ingram
J. David Turner
William V. Parrish, III
Hon. Frances E. McGee