Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Wilson

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Champaign

June 28, 2019

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RONALD LEE WILSON, JR. Defendant-Appellant

          Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court Trial Court Case No. 2018-CR-126

          KEVIN TALEBI, Atty. Reg. No. 0069198, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Champaign County Prosecutor's Office, 200 North Main Street, Urbana, Ohio 43078 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

          JOHNNA M. SHIA, Atty. Reg. No. 0067685, P.O. Box 145, Springboro, Ohio 45066 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

          OPINION

          TUCKER, J.

         {¶ 1} Appellant Ronald Lee Wilson, Jr.'s appointed counsel has filed a brief under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The Anders brief states that counsel could not find any potentially meritorious issues to appeal. Following an independent review of the record, we agree with this assessment. As such, the judgment of the Champaign County Common Pleas Court will be affirmed.

         Facts and Procedural History

         {¶ 2} Wilson was indicted for aggravated possession of drugs (methamphetamine), a third-degree felony, receiving stolen property (a motor vehicle), a fourth-degree felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a fourth-degree misdemeanor. Each felony count included a one-year firearm specification. The drug paraphernalia count included a property forfeiture specification.

         {¶ 3} Following negotiations, Wilson pleaded guilty to the felony counts; the firearm specifications and the drug paraphernalia count were dismissed. The State recommended completion of a presentence investigation (PSI) and further recommended, assuming the PSI did not reveal unknown past criminal conduct, that Wilson be sentenced to a term of community control sanctions (CCS). Because a prison term was presumed regarding the aggravated possession of drugs count, and consistent with the tentative CCS recommendation, the State agreed not to appeal a CCS sentence. As part of the agreement, Wilson withdrew a motion to compel discovery and a motion to suppress evidence. Finally, Wilson agreed to forfeit the firearm and drug paraphernalia involved in his offenses.

         {¶ 4} A PSI was completed, and following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Wilson to a CCS term not to exceed five years. A number of CCS conditions were imposed, including that Wilson complete the program at the West Central Community Correctional Facility. This appeal followed, and counsel was appointed to represent Wilson. As noted, counsel has filed an Anders brief which includes a request that she be allowed to withdraw as counsel. We informed Wilson of the Anders brief and of his right to file a pro se brief within 60 days of the Anders notification. Wilson has not filed a brief.

         Anders Standard

         {¶ 5} An appellate court, upon the filing of an Anders brief, has a duty to determine, "after a full examination of the proceedings," whether the appeal is, in fact, "wholly frivolous." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 300. An issue is not frivolous based upon the conclusion that the State will have a strong responsive argument. State v. Pullen, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19232, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4. A frivolous issue, instead, is present when, "on the facts and law involved, no responsible contention can be made that offers a basis for reversal." State v. Marbury, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19226, 2003-Ohio-3242, ¶ 8. If we find there is any issue that is not wholly frivolous, we must reject the Anders brief and appoint new counsel. Id. at ¶ 7, citing Pullen

         Anders Analysis

         {¶ 6} We have reviewed the plea colloquy, which reveals the trial court's strict compliance with Crim.R. 11. Further, the record fails to generate any concern that Wilson's plea was less than voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Accordingly, we conclude that any argument attacking Wilson's plea on appeal would be without arguable merit.

         {¶ 7} We have also reviewed Wilson's sentence. This review indicates the trial court conducted an appropriate sentencing hearing and sentenced Wilson to a term of CCS which included a number of conditions, including his completion of a community-based correctional program. Wilson, it would seem, cannot complain regarding the CCS sentence, and all of the CCS conditions were ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.