State v. Baldwin

[Cite as State v. Baldwin, 2019-Ohio-2542.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 29176
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
MALIK S. BALDWIN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR-2017-11-3938
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: June 26, 2019
CALLAHAN, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Malik Baldwin, appeals his sentence following a guilty plea. His
appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Mr.
Baldwin responded by proposing three issues for this Court’s review. Having independently
reviewed the record, counsel’s Anders brief, and the issues proposed by Mr. Baldwin, this Court
grants counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirms the judgment of the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas.
I.
{¶2} Mr. Baldwin pleaded guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter in violation of
R.C. 2903.03(A), with an attendant firearm specification, and one count of kidnapping in
violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(2). His written plea agreement reflected an agreed sentence
consisting of a ten-year prison term for the voluntary manslaughter conviction, a three-year
prison term for the firearm specification, and a seven-year prison term for the kidnapping
2
conviction. The plea agreement provided that all of the prison terms would be served
consecutively “for [a] 20 year total” term. The trial court sentenced Mr. Baldwin in accordance
with the plea agreement.
{¶3} This Court granted Mr. Baldwin leave to file a delayed appeal. Appointed
counsel filed a motion for leave to withdraw accompanied by an Anders brief. Consistent with
the guidelines in Anders, counsel asserted that, after a review of the record, he was unable to find
any issues that might support an appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Mr. Baldwin responded,
proposing three issues that he alleged were not wholly frivolous. The State of Ohio filed a
response to Mr. Baldwin’s brief.
II.
{¶4} Upon the filing of an Anders brief, this Court conducts a full examination of the
proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. Id. One court has elaborated on
the nature of a “frivolous” appeal for Anders purposes:
Anders equates a frivolous appeal with one that presents issues lacking in
arguable merit. An issue does not lack arguable merit merely because the
prosecution can be expected to present a strong argument in reply or because it is
uncertain whether an appellant will ultimately prevail on that issue on appeal.
“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.”
State v. Moore, 2d Dist. Greene No. 07-CA-97, 2009-Ohio-1416, ¶ 4, quoting State v. Pullen, 2d
Dist. Montgomery No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4. If this Court’s independent review reveals
that any issue presented is not wholly frivolous or that there are other arguable issues, we must
appoint different appellate counsel to represent the appellant. Pullen at ¶ 2.
{¶5} Mr. Baldwin has suggested that there are three non-frivolous issues for appeal:
that the trial court committed plain error by failing to merge his sentences for voluntary
manslaughter and kidnapping, that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to
3
advise him that his sentences would not merge, and that his guilty plea was not knowing and
voluntary as a result.
{¶6} The failure to merge allied offenses can be raised after a guilty plea if not
affirmatively waived. See State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St. 3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 20, citing
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St. 3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 29. Such a failure may also constitute
plain error, but the appellant must demonstrate that as the result of the alleged error, the outcome
of the proceeding would have been different. See Rogers at ¶ 3 (“[A]n accused has the burden to
demonstrate a reasonable probability that the convictions are for allied offenses of similar import
committed with the same conduct and without a separate animus; absent that showing, the
accused cannot demonstrate that the trial court’s failure to inquire whether the convictions merge
for purposes of sentencing was plain error.”).
{¶7} In this case, the record does not contain any information from which this Court
could determine whether the offenses at issue were allied. See generally State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio
St.3d 114, 2015-Ohio-995, paragraphs one and three of the syllabus. The record therefore
demonstrates neither plain error nor ineffective assistance of counsel. See Rogers at ¶ 22 (noting
that in demonstrating plain error, “[t]he accused is * * * required to demonstrate a reasonable
probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing
ineffective assistance of counsel claims.”) (Emphasis in original.). Mr. Baldwin’s written plea
agreement also clearly contemplated that he would serve three consecutive prison sentences
totaling twenty years, so the record does not demonstrate that his plea was not knowing and
voluntary.
{¶8} Upon this Court’s own full, independent examination of the record, we agree that
there are no appealable, non-frivolous issues in this case. See State v. Randles, 9th Dist. Summit
4
No. 23857, 2008-Ohio-662, ¶ 6; citing State v. Lowe, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 97CA006758, 1998
WL 161274, *3 (Apr. 8, 1998). Accordingly, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw
and affirm the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.
III.
{¶9} Having reviewed the entire record and having found that no non-frivolous
appealable issues exist, we conclude that Mr. Baldwin’s appeal is meritless and wholly frivolous
under Anders. Mr. Baldwin’s appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel is hereby
granted. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
LYNNE S. CALLAHAN
FOR THE COURT
5
TEODOSIO, P. J.
SCHAFER, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
DONALD R. HICKS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
MALIK SHABAZZ BALDWIN, pro se, Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.