Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Sandusky
Court No. 2014CR0983
Timothy F. Braun, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, for
Christopher M. Marcinko, for appellant.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
1} Appellant, Jason O'Grady, appeals from the
June 9, 2016 judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common
Pleas convicting him of aggravated vehicular homicide, a
violation of R.C. 2903.06(A)(1) and a felony of the second
degree, following acceptance of his guilty plea, and
sentencing him to a mandatory eight-year term of imprisonment
and a mandatory Class 1 Ohio driver's license suspension
2} Pursuant to the guidelines set forth in
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,
18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), appellant's court-appointed
counsel has filed an appellate brief and motion to withdraw
as counsel. He mailed a copy of the brief and motion to
appellant and informed him that he had a right to file his
own brief, but he did not do so.
3} Appellant's counsel states in his motion that
he thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and concluded
that the trial court did not commit any error prejudicial to
appellant. However, in compliance with the requirements of
Anders, appellant's counsel has submitted a
brief setting forth two potential assignments of error:
POTENTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE
Whether the trial court's sentence of the defendant was
an abuse of the Court's sentencing discretion.
POTENTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO
Whether the trial court erred by accepting appellant's
plea despite several responses from the Defendant during the
hearing which may lead to questions about Defendant's
intentions in entering his plea.
4} Appellant's appointed counsel has included
arguments which support these assignments of error, but
concludes that they are unsupported by the record and/or by
the law. Therefore, he concludes that an appeal would be
frivolous. We have reviewed the entire lower court's
proceedings and have determined that there is no merit to the
errors alleged by appellant's appointed counsel.
5} Our standard of review of a sentencing judgment
is whether there is clear and convincing evidence in the
record to support the findings of the court made under R.C.
2929.13(B)(2)(e), 2929.14(C)(14), or 2929.20(I) and whether
the sentence is contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
6} Courts have broad discretion to impose any
sentence that falls within the statutory guidelines.
State v. Marcum,146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002,
59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 13, citing State v. Foster,109 Ohio St.3d 1, 100, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470. In this
case, the trial court was required by law to sentence
appellant for a violation of R.C. 2908.06(A), a second-degree
felony, to a mandatory prison term (R.C. 2908.06(B)(2)(a)) ...