State v. Wolf

[Cite as State v. Wolf, 2020-Ohio-516.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case Nos. 28546, 28547,
: 28548
v. :
: Trial Court Case Nos. 2019-CR-
CHRISTOPHER JOHN WOLF : 1296/2, 2019-CR-1979/1, 2019-CR-
: 2871
Defendant-Appellant :
: (Criminal Appeal from
Common Pleas Court)
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 14th day of February, 2020.
...........
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, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
JOHN S. PINARD, Atty. Reg. No. 0085567, 120 West Second Street, Suite 603, Dayton,
Ohio 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
WELBAUM, J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Christopher John Wolf appeals from his convictions for
forgery and theft. On November 6, 2019, Wolf’s 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),
indicating there are no issues with arguable merit to present on appeal. On November 12,
2019, we notified Wolf that his appellate counsel found no meritorious claim for review
and granted him 60 days to file a pro se brief assigning any errors. Wolf, however, did
not file a pro se brief.
{¶ 2} After conducting an independent review of the entire record as required by
Anders, including the presentence investigation report, we find no potentially meritorious
issues for Wolf to advance on appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be
affirmed.
Pertinent Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 3} On July 19, 2019, Wolf was indicted in Montgomery C.P. No. 2019-CR-
1979/1 for forgery, receiving stolen property and theft. On July 22, 2019, he was indicted
in Montgomery C.P. No. 2019-CR-1296/2 for two counts of theft. On September 10, 2019,
Wolf was charged by bill of information for theft in Montgomery C.P. No. 2019-CR-2871.
All counts in these cases were felonies of the fifth degree.
{¶ 4} Also on September 10, 2019, Wolf agreed to a plea agreement whereby he
pled guilty to the following: theft and forgery (uttering) in Case No. 2019-CR-1979/1; one
count of theft (elderly/disabled person-without consent) in Case No. 2019-CR-01296/2;
and theft (elderly/disabled person-without consent) in Case No. 2019-CR-2871, all
felonies of the fifth degree. Other counts were dismissed.
{¶ 5} At Wolf’s plea hearing, the trial court fully complied with the requirements of
-3-
Crim.R. 11(C)(2) for accepting pleas. The Court ordered a presentence investigation
report (PSI). Sentencing was held on September 24, 2019.
{¶ 6} After adhering to all requirements of law, the trial court sentenced Wolf in all
three cases. In Case No. 2019-CR-1979/1, the Court ordered Wolf to serve 12 months in
prison for theft and 12 months in prison for forgery, to be served concurrently but
consecutively to the 12-month prison sentence imposed for theft in Case No. 2019-CR-
1296/2. When imposing the consecutive sentences, the Court made the necessary
findings and included the findings in its judgment entry. In Case No. 2019-CR-2871, the
Court also imposed a 12-month sentence and ordered it to be served concurrently with
the other cases. The aggregate sentence was 24 months in prison.
{¶ 7} The Court granted Wolf 64 days of jail time credit and ordered Wolf to pay
restitution and court costs after considering Wolf’s present and future ability to pay.
Thereafter, Wolf filed a timely notice of appeal.
Discussion and Conclusion
{¶ 8} In an Anders review, we are required to decide “after a full examination of all
the proceedings,” whether an appeal is “wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87
S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 84-85, 109 S. Ct.
346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). Issues are not frivolous simply because the State “can be
expected to present a strong argument in reply.” State v. Pullen, 2d Dist. Montgomery
No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4. Instead, 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.” Id.
{¶ 9} After conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to Anders, we
-4-
agree with Wolf’s appellate counsel that, based on the facts and relevant law, there are
no issues with arguable merit to present on appeal.
{¶ 10} At sentencing, the trial court considered the nature of the offenses and the
results of the presentence investigation, which included an extremely extensive criminal
record. As indicated earlier, the trial court made all of the necessary findings supporting
the imposition of consecutive sentences at the hearing and in the corresponding
sentencing entry.
{¶ 11} For the foregoing reasons, we find that the potential issues raised by
appellate counsel have no arguable merit. After conducting an independent review of
the record as required by Anders, we also find no issues with arguable merit for Wolf to
advance on appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
.............
FROELICH, J. and HALL, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Mathias H. Heck, Jr.
Andrew T. French
John S. Pinard
Christopher John Wolf
Hon. Mary Lynn Wiseman