Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking
from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 15 CR
Plaintiff-Appellee PAULA SAWYERS Licking County
Defendant-Appellant ZACHARY A. MOYER Brehm & Associates
Co., LPA KENNETH ROLES, PRO SE
Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon.
Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
Defendant-appellant Kenneth L. Roles appeals the January 27,
2017 Judgment Entry entered by the Licking County Court of
Common Pleas, which overruled his motion to dismiss, and
resentenced him to impose the appropriate period of
post-release control. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of
OF THE CASE
On December 1, 2015, a Criminal Complaint/Arrest Warrant was
filed against Appellant, charging him with one count of
domestic violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A)(D)(4), a
felony of the third degree. Appellant entered a plea of not
guilty at his arraignment. Appellant appeared before the
trial court on April 28, 2016, and withdrew his former plea
of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the charge. The
trial court accepted Appellant's plea and deferred
sentencing pending a presentence investigation.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a two-year
prison term, and advised Appellant, upon his release from the
penitentiary, he "could be placed on post-release
control for a period of up to three years as determined at
the discretion of the Adult Parole Authority." The trial
court memorialized Appellant's sentence via Judgment
Entry filed on July 8, 2016. Subsequently, on December 30,
2016, Appellee filed a motion requesting the trial court
resentence Appellant to correct the error in the post-release
control sanctions originally imposed. Appellant filed a
motion to dismiss.
On January 27, 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing.
Appellant appeared via video conferencing. The trial court
provided the parties with an opportunity to speak regarding
their respective positions as to Appellant's
resentencing. The trial court overruled Appellant's
motion to dismiss and noted his objections to the
proceedings. Thereafter, the trial court resentenced
Appellant to a period of incarceration of two years and
informed Appellant he would be placed on post-release control
for a mandatory three years following his release from
prison. The trial court advised Appellant he had a right to
appeal and the right to appointed counsel. The trial court
gave Appellant jail time credit for time served under the
Appellate counsel has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S.
738, rehearing den. (1967), 388 U.S. 924, indicating the
within appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel for Appellant has
raised one potential assignment of error asking this Court to
determine whether the trial court erred in the sentence
imposed upon Appellant. Appellant was given an opportunity to
file a brief raising additional assignments of error, but
none was filed.
In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held if,
after a conscientious examination of the record, a
defendant's counsel concludes the case is wholly
frivolous, then he should so advise the court and request
permission to withdraw. Id. at 744. Counsel must
accompany his request with a brief identifying anything in
the record that could arguably support his client's
appeal. Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish his
client with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw; and,
(2) allow his client sufficient time to raise any matters
that the client chooses. Id. Once the
defendant's counsel satisfies these requirements, the
appellate court must fully examine the proceedings below to
determine if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If the
appellate court also determines that the appeal is wholly
frivolous, it may grant counsel's request to withdraw and
dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional
requirements, or may proceed to a decision on the merits if
state law so requires. Id.
Counsel in this matter has followed the procedure in
Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738.
Counsel asserts one potential assignment of error in the
"Assignments of Error" section of ...