State v. Whitaker ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Whitaker, 
    2012-Ohio-6005
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    ROSS COUNTY
    STATE OF OHIO,                                                  :
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                                     :   Case No. 12CA3311
    vs.                                                     :
    JAMES M. WHITAKER,                                              :   DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
    Defendant-Appellant.                                    :
    ______________________________________________________________
    APPEARANCES:
    COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:                         Aaron M. McHenry, 14 South Paint Street, Suite 1,
    Chillicothe, Ohio 45601
    COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:                          Matthew S. Schmidt, Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, 72
    North Paint Street, Chillicothe, Ohio 456011
    CRIMINAL CASE FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT
    DATE JOURNALIZED: 12-7-12
    ABELE, P.J.
    {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Ross County Common Pleas Court judgment of conviction
    and sentence. James M. Whitaker, defendant below and appellant herein, pled guilty to certain
    crimes that involved a victim under thirteen years of age, including: (1) two counts of rape in
    violation of R.C. 2907.02, each a first degree felony; and (2) two counts of gross sexual imposition
    in violation of R.C. 2907.05, each a third degree felony.
    {¶ 2} During the change of plea hearing, the trial court advised appellant of, inter alia, the
    1
    Appellee did not enter an appearance in this appeal.
    ROSS, 12CA3311                                                                                       2
    nature of the charges against him, his constitutional and statutory rights, and the various
    requirements concerning post-release control and sex offender registration. After the appellant
    responded that he did understand the nature of the charges and the various rights that he would waive
    by virtue of his guilty plea, the trial court accepted appellant's guilty plea.
    {¶ 3} Appellant's trial counsel and the prosecution reached a sentencing agreement that the
    trial court subsequently accepted. The court sentenced appellant to serve (1) ten years to life in
    prison on the rape charges, with the sentences to be served consecutively to each other; and (2) three
    years in prison on the gross sexual imposition charges, with the sentences to be served concurrently
    to each count as well as concurrently to all other sentences.
    {¶ 4} Appellant's appointed counsel has informed us that he has reviewed the court file, as
    well as the transcript of the proceedings, and can discern no meritorious claims for appeal.
    Accordingly, under Anders v. California (1967), 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S.Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L.Ed.2d 493
    ,
    counsel has (1) moved to withdraw as appellant's counsel on the basis that the appeal is frivolous,
    and (2) requested this court to independently review the trial court proceedings to determine if
    possible error exists. Counsel has also certified that a copy of the appellate brief has been
    forwarded to the appellant with instructions that he may, if he so desires, file is own appellate brief.
    {¶ 5} Appellate counsel has further advised the court that although under Anders he has
    the obligation to identify any potential error for review, the sparse record and limited proceedings
    in the case sub judice does not reveal any discernable potential errors. Counsel notes that
    appellant, who was represented by counsel during the trial court proceedings, pled guilty to the
    crimes pursuant to an agreement with the prosecution. Counsel further points out that the plea
    agreement and sentence occurred less than two months after the Ross County Grand Jury returned
    ROSS, 12CA3311                                                                                        3
    indictments that charged appellant with the aforementioned offenses.
    {¶ 6} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held that if counsel determines, after a
    conscientious examination of the record, that the case is wholly frivolous, counsel should so advise
    the court and request permission to withdraw. Counsel must also (1) accompany the request with
    a brief that identifies anything in the record that could arguably support the appeal; and (2) furnish
    the client with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw and allow the client sufficient time to
    raise any matters that the client so chooses. Once these requirements have been satisfied, the
    appellate court must then fully examine the proceedings to determine if an arguably meritorious
    issue exists. If so, the court must appoint new counsel and decide the merits of the appeal. If,
    however, the appellate court determines that the appeal is frivolous, it may grant counsel's request
    to withdraw and dismiss the appeal without violating federal constitutional requirements, or may
    proceed to a decision on the merits if state law so requires.
    {¶ 7} In the case sub judice, we believe that appointed counsel fully satisfied the
    requirements set forth in Anders. Also, the appellant has not filed a pro se brief to set forth any
    potential assignments of error. After our examination of the entire record, we find nothing in the
    record to demonstrate any potential error and have determined that this appeal is, in fact, wholly
    frivolous. Accordingly, we hereby grant appellant's counsel motion to withdraw and we hereby
    affirm the trial court's judgment.
    JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
    JUDGMENT ENTRY
    ROSS, 12CA3311                                                                                     4
    It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed and appellee shall recover the costs.
    The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Ross County
    Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
    A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules
    of Appellate Procedure.
    Harsha, J. & Kline, J.: Concur in Judgment & Opinion
    For the Court
    BY:
    Peter B. Abele
    Presiding Judge
    NOTICE TO COUNSEL
    Pursuant to Local Rule 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time
    period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12CA3311

Judges: Abele

Filed Date: 12/7/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016