State v. Wilson

[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2019-Ohio-2596.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2018-CA-37
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2018-CR-126
:
RONALD LEE WILSON, JR. : (Criminal Appeal from
: Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 28th day of June, 2019.
...........
KEVIN TALEBI, Atty. Reg. No. 0069198, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Champaign
County Prosecutor’s Office, 200 North Main Street, Urbana, Ohio 43078
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
JOHNNA M. SHIA, Atty. Reg. No. 0067685, P.O. Box 145, Springboro, Ohio 45066
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
TUCKER, J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Appellant Ronald Lee Wilson, Jr.’s appointed counsel has filed a brief under
the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
The Anders brief states that counsel could not find any potentially meritorious issues to
appeal. Following an independent review of the record, we agree with this assessment.
As such, the judgment of the Champaign County Common Pleas Court will be affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Wilson was indicted for aggravated possession of drugs
(methamphetamine), a third-degree felony, receiving stolen property (a motor vehicle), a
fourth-degree felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a fourth-degree
misdemeanor. Each felony count included a one-year firearm specification. The drug
paraphernalia count included a property forfeiture specification.
{¶ 3} Following negotiations, Wilson pleaded guilty to the felony counts; the firearm
specifications and the drug paraphernalia count were dismissed. The State
recommended completion of a presentence investigation (PSI) and further
recommended, assuming the PSI did not reveal unknown past criminal conduct, that
Wilson be sentenced to a term of community control sanctions (CCS). Because a prison
term was presumed regarding the aggravated possession of drugs count, and consistent
with the tentative CCS recommendation, the State agreed not to appeal a CCS sentence.
As part of the agreement, Wilson withdrew a motion to compel discovery and a motion to
suppress evidence. Finally, Wilson agreed to forfeit the firearm and drug paraphernalia
involved in his offenses.
-3-
{¶ 4} A PSI was completed, and following a sentencing hearing, the trial court
sentenced Wilson to a CCS term not to exceed five years. A number of CCS conditions
were imposed, including that Wilson complete the program at the West Central
Community Correctional Facility. This appeal followed, and counsel was appointed to
represent Wilson. As noted, counsel has filed an Anders brief which includes a request
that she be allowed to withdraw as counsel. We informed Wilson of the Anders brief and
of his right to file a pro se brief within 60 days of the Anders notification. Wilson has not
filed a brief.
Anders Standard
{¶ 5} An appellate court, upon the filing of an Anders brief, has a duty to determine,
“after a full examination of the proceedings,” whether the appeal is, in fact, “wholly
frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 300. An issue is not
frivolous based upon the conclusion that the State will have a strong responsive
argument. State v. Pullen, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4. A
frivolous issue, instead, is present when, “on the facts and law involved, no responsible
contention can be made that offers a basis for reversal.” State v. Marbury, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 19226, 2003-Ohio-3242, ¶ 8. If we find there is any issue that is not
wholly frivolous, we must reject the Anders brief and appoint new counsel. Id. at ¶ 7,
citing Pullen
Anders Analysis
{¶ 6} We have reviewed the plea colloquy, which reveals the trial court’s strict
-4-
compliance with Crim.R. 11. Further, the record fails to generate any concern that
Wilson’s plea was less than voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Accordingly, we
conclude that any argument attacking Wilson’s plea on appeal would be without arguable
merit.
{¶ 7} We have also reviewed Wilson’s sentence. This review indicates the trial
court conducted an appropriate sentencing hearing and sentenced Wilson to a term of
CCS which included a number of conditions, including his completion of a community-
based correctional program. Wilson, it would seem, cannot complain regarding the CCS
sentence, and all of the CCS conditions were appropriate and within the trial court’s
discretion. Any argument to the contrary would be wholly frivolous.
{¶ 8} We have also reviewed the remaining record including all plea and
sentencing entries and the PSI. This review has not revealed any potentially meritorious
appellate issues.
Conclusion
{¶ 9} We have found no non-frivolous issues for appellate review. Counsel’s
request to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the Champaign County Common
Pleas Court is affirmed.
.............
WELBAUM, P.J. and FROELICH, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Kevin Talebi
Johnna M. Shia
Ronald Lee Wilson, Jr.
-5-
Hon. Nick A. Selvaggio