Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Sandusky
Court No. 16 CR 530
A. Klimkowsky, for appellant.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
1} This is an appeal of a September 29, 2016
judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas.
Defendant-appellant, Glen Gilbert, pled guilty to one count
of pandering obscenity involving a minor, in violation of
R.C. 2907.32(1)(A)(2), a felony in the second degree. The
trial court sentenced Gilbert to 48 months in prison, and he
2} Gilbert's appointed counsel has submitted a
request to withdraw from the case, pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493
(1967). Counsel asserts that he has reviewed the entire
record on appeal, and he is unable to find any nonfrivolous
issues for our review. He requests that he be allowed to
withdraw from the case. Counsel advised Gilbert of his right
to file his own brief
3} Neither Gilbert nor the state, the appellee
herein, filed an appellate brief
Request to Withdraw
4} The procedure to be followed by appointed counsel
who desires to withdraw for want of a meritorious, appealable
issue is set forth in Anders and State v.
Duncan, 57 Ohio App.2d 93, 385 N.E.2d 323 (8th
Dist.1978). In Anders, the United States Supreme
Court held that if counsel, after a conscientious examination
of the case, determines it to be wholly frivolous he should
so advise the court and request permission to withdraw.
Anders at 744. This request, however, must be
accompanied by a brief identifying anything in the record
that could arguably support the appeal. Id. Counsel
must also furnish his client with a copy of the brief,
request to withdraw, and allow the client sufficient time to
raise any matters that the client chooses. Id. Once
these requirements have been satisfied, the appellate court
must then conduct a full examination of the proceedings held
below to determine if the appeal is indeed frivolous. If the
appellate court determines that the appeal is frivolous, it
may grant counsel's request to withdraw and dismiss the
appeal without violating constitutional requirements or it
may proceed to a decision on the merits if state law so
5} In his brief, appointed counsel fails to identify
"anything in the record that could arguably support the
appeal, " as required by Anders. Counsel
maintains that he "can find no error by the trial court
prejudicial to the rights of [Gilbert] which may be argued in
a nonfrivolous manner on appeal."
6} This court, as required under Anders,
has undertaken our own examination of the record to determine
whether any issue of arguable merit is presented for appeal.
Because we find that a potential error has arguable merit, we
appoint new appellate counsel for the purpose of briefing and
presenting that issue, and any others, for our review.
and Procedural History
7} Appellant was indicted on four criminal counts:
pandering obscenity involving a minor, in violation of R.C.
2907.32(1)(A)(2), a second-degree felony; importuning, in
violation of R.C. 2907.07(D)(2), a fifth-degree felony;
attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, in violation
of R.C. 2907.04(A) and 2923.02, a fourth-degree felony; and
disseminating matter harmful to a juvenile in violation of
R.C. 2907.31(A)(1), a fifth-degree felony.
8} The charges stem from a personal advertisement
Gilbert placed on "Craigslist" and the resulting
online conversation he had with someone whom he believed was
a 13-year-old girl, but was actually a Bellevue police
officer posing as a young girl. Gilbert sent four
pornographic videos, including child pornography, to
"the girl" and arranged to meet her in a park for