State v. Lawson , 2022 Ohio 2893 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Lawson, 2022-Ohio-2893.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 29424
:
v. : Trial Court Case Nos. 2021-CR-3442
: & 2021-CR-2860
NICKOLAS S. LAWSON :
: (Criminal Appeal from
Defendant-Appellant : Common Pleas Court)
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 19th day of Springboro, 2022.
...........
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR. by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Atty. Reg. No. 0069384, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division,
Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio
45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
ROBERT ALAN BRENNER, Atty. Reg. No. 0067714, P.O. Box 340214, Beavercreek,
Ohio 45434
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
EPLEY, J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Nickolas S. Lawson appeals from the imposition of new community control
sanctions after he was previously convicted of aggravated possession of drugs, a fifth-
degree felony, obstructing official business, a second-degree misdemeanor, and
domestic violence, a fourth-degree misdemeanor. His appellate counsel filed a brief under
the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967),
stating he was unable to find any non-frivolous issues for appeal. Upon our independent
review, we agree with counsel’s assessment. For the reasons that follow, the trial court’s
judgment will be affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Lawson was charged in Montgomery C.P. No. 2021-CR-2860 with one count
of domestic violence, a fourth-degree felony, failure to comply with an order or signal of
a police officer, a first-degree misdemeanor, and resisting arrest, a second-degree
misdemeanor. He was later charged in Montgomery C.P. No. 2021-CR-3442 with a single
count of aggravated possession of drugs, a fifth-degree felony.
{¶ 3} As to Case No. 2021-CR-2860, the original charges were dismissed, and on
October 28, 2021, Lawson pled guilty by way of bill of information to obstructing official
business, a second-degree misdemeanor, and domestic violence, a fourth-degree
misdemeanor. He was sentenced to community control for a period of no longer than five
years. On January 6, 2022, Lawson pled guilty to aggravated possession of drugs in Case
No. 2021-CR-3442, sentenced to community control, and ordered to serve 30 days of
local incarceration.
{¶ 4} Evidently, Lawson did not comply with the terms of community control, and
-3-
on March 3, 2022, he was brought before the court in both cases for community control
violations. He stated that he did not want to be assessed for drug and alcohol treatment
and instead asked for additional jail time. The court obliged, ordered an additional 90
days, and announced that Lawson’s community control would be unsuccessfully
terminated following the completion of the jail sentence.
{¶ 5} Lawson appealed, appellate counsel was appointed and, after reviewing the
record, counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that he could find no arguably meritorious
issues to argue. We informed Lawson that he had 60 days to file a pro se brief. He did
not file his own brief.
II. Anders Review
{¶ 6} Upon the filing of an Anders brief, an appellate court must determine, “after
a full examination of all the proceedings,” whether the appeal is “wholly frivolous.”
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493; Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). “An issue is not frivolous merely because the
prosecution can be expected to present a strong argument in reply.” State v. White, 2d
Dist. Montgomery No. 28338, 2020-Ohio-5544, ¶ 14, citing State v. Pullen, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4. Rather, a frivolous appeal is one that
presents issues lacking arguable merit, which means that, “on the facts and law involved,
no responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis for reversal.” State v.
Marbury, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19226, 2003-Ohio-3242, ¶ 8, citing Pullen at ¶ 4. If we
find that any issue – whether presented by appellate counsel, presented by the defendant,
or found through an independent analysis – is not wholly frivolous, we must reject the
-4-
Anders brief and appoint new appellate counsel to represent the defendant. White at ¶ 14,
citing Marbury at ¶ 7; State v. Almeyda, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28727, 2021-Ohio-862,
¶ 3.
{¶ 7} Lawson appeals, not from his initial conviction but from the imposition of new
or additional community control sanctions handed down by the court in March 2022.
Because of this limited focus, we will address the potential assignment of error raised by
appellate counsel: the trial erred by sentencing Lawson to jail time for violating the terms
of his community control.
{¶ 8} According to R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(b), after a violation of felony community
control sanctions, a trial court may impose a more restrictive sanction, including but not
limited to a new term in a community-based correctional facility, halfway house, or jail
pursuant to R.C.2929.16(A)(6). If the offender violates misdemeanor community control
sanctions, the sentencing court has the authority to impose a longer time under the same
community control sanctions, a more restrictive sanction, or a combination of community
control sanctions, including a jail term. R.C. 2929.25(D)(2)(a)-(c).
{¶ 9} Here, the trial court intended to have Lawson screened for inpatient
substance abuse treatment, but he refused and instead asked for jail time. Consequently,
the court continued him on community control in both cases and added an additional 90
days of local incarceration, noting that his community control would be unsuccessfully
terminated at the completion of his jail term. The actions taken by the trial court were in
accordance with both R.C. 2929.15(B)(1) and R.C. 2929.25(D)(2), and thus, we find no
arguable error in Lawson’s jail sentence.
-5-
{¶ 10} Even if there had been an error with Lawson’s jail sentence, we would find
that issue to be moot. “The role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue
judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cyran v. Cyran, 152 Ohio St.3d 484, 2018-
Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487, ¶ 9, citing Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14, 257 N.E.2d
371 (1970); State v. Smith, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27981, 2019-Ohio-3592, ¶ 8. Under
the mootness doctrine, American courts will not decide cases where an actual legal
controversy no longer exists between the parties. Id., citing In re A.G., 139 Ohio St.3d
572, 2014-Ohio-2597, 13 N.E.3d 1146, ¶ 37. “Issues are moot when they lack practical
significance and, instead, present academic or hypothetical questions.” Dibert v.
Carpenter, 2018-Ohio-1054, 98 N.E.3d 350, ¶ 30 (2d Dist.), citing State ex rel. Ford v.
Ruehlman, 149 Ohio St.3d 34, 2016-Ohio-3529, 73 N.E.3d 396, ¶ 55. In this case,
Lawson has served the entirety of his jail time, and on June 26, 2022, the court terminated
his community control. There is no longer a legal controversy related to whether Lawson
violated his community control sanctions and the trial court’s additional sanction, and
therefore, this appeal is moot.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 11} We have reviewed the entire record and have found no potentially
meritorious appellate issues. Having found no non-frivolous issues, appellate counsel is
permitted to withdraw, and the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
.............
DONOVAN, J. and LEWIS, J., concur.
-6-
Copies sent to:
Mathias H. Heck, Jr.
Andrew T. French
Robert Alan Brenner
Nickolas S. Lawson
Hon. Mary E. Montgomery