from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (C.P.C. No.
O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Barbara A. Farnbacher,
J. Rigg, for appellant.
1} Defendant-appellant, Michael A. Hudson, appeals
from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
convicting him, following entry of a guilty plea, to one
count of obstructing official business. Before this court is
a counseled brief filed pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the reasons
outlined below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
2} On October 27, 2017, a Franklin County Grand Jury
indicted appellant on two counts of assault in violation of
R.C. 2903.13, both felonies of the fourth degree, and one
count of obstructing official business in violation of R.C.
2921.31, a felony of the fifth degree. The charges arose out
of an October 18, 2017 incident involving an altercation
between appellant and two Columbus police officers.
3} During the course of the criminal proceedings,
the issue of appellant's competency arose. As a result,
the trial court ordered appellant to submit to a psychiatric
evaluation at Netcare Forensic Psychiatry Center. Following
that evaluation, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing
on September 12, 2018 to determine appellant's
competency. The parties stipulated to the results of the
competency evaluation, which found appellant competent to
stand trial. Based upon that stipulation and its own
observations of appellant's demeanor during the criminal
proceedings, the trial court found appellant competent to
4} On the same day, appellant entered a plea of
guilty to one count of obstructing official business as
charged in the indictment in exchange for a nolle prosequi on
the assault charges. According to the prosecution's
recitation of facts at the plea hearing, on October 18, 2017,
Officers Derdzinski and Nowalk were dispatched to transport a
vehicle from the scene of a reported assault on Marion Road.
During the investigation, appellant was handcuffed and placed
in the rear of a police cruiser. In an effort to mollify
appellant's complaints of pain in his back and shoulders,
the officers put two sets of handcuffs on him so the
handcuffs would not be so tight. During this process,
appellant managed to slip the handcuffs to the front of his
body. The officers then opened the rear door of the cruiser,
and a struggle ensued. When appellant bit the arm of one of
the officers, the other officer removed appellant from the
cruiser and attempted to gain control of him by placing him
on the ground. Appellant and that officer engaged in a
scuffle which resulted in the officer being struck in the
left leg. The officers eventually gained control of appellant
and transported him to jail.
5} Following the recitation of facts and a Crim.R.
11 colloquy, the trial court found appellant guilty of one
count of obstructing official business, ordered a presentence
investigation ("PSI"), and set a sentencing date.
At the November 1, 2018 sentencing hearing, the parties and
the trial court discussed much of the information contained
in the PSI report, including the fact that appellant was
currently awaiting trial in the Franklin County Municipal
Court on charges of assault and aggravated menacing stemming
from an alleged domestic violence incident that immediately
preceded, and was the apparent impetus for, the incident
involving the officers in the instant case. The court and the
parties also discussed appellant's interview with the PSI
writer, during which appellant expressed hostility toward
police officers, stating, among other things, that "I
understand why people shoot cops in the face at stop signs
now." (Nov. 1, 2018 Sentencing Tr. at 10; PSI report at
14.) The court expressed apprehension about this comment,
particularly noting concerns about police safety and the
negative impression such a comment might have on
appellant's ten-year old child. The court also noted that
appellant was currently attending weekly mental health
treatment sessions. In this regard, the PSI report indicated
that appellant admitted that he had been diagnosed with
"extreme depression and anxiety." (PSI report at
11.) Although not discussed extensively at the sentencing
hearing, the PSI report also indicated that appellant was
incarcerated at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction from May 1997 to August 2006 following convictions
for felonious assault, breaking and entering, and vandalism,
all felonies. During the course of the sentencing hearing,
counsel for appellant advocated for the imposition of
community control sanctions rather than prison time. In
contrast, the prosecution requested that the trial court
impose a term of imprisonment.
6} At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the
trial court imposed a four-year period of community control
under direct placement and intensive supervision on the
mental health caseload, provided appellant had no new
convictions. The court also ordered that appellant abide by
the rules and regulations of the probation department, stay
linked with mental health treatment and follow any
recommended treatment, and possess no firearms. The trial
court memorialized its judgment in an entry filed November 2,
7} Through his appointed appellate counsel,
appellant filed a timely appeal to this court. Counsel
advised this court that he had reviewed the record and could
not find a meritorious claim for appeal. As a result, counsel
filed a brief pursuant to Anders and, by a notice
filed on April 19, 2019, certified that a copy of the
appellate brief was mailed to appellant. In a journal entry
filed April 29, 2019, this court notified appellant of his
right to file a supplemental brief and granted counsel's
January 22, 2019 motion to withdraw as counsel. Appellant did
not file a supplemental brief. Accordingly, the matter is
before this court upon the Anders brief filed by
appellant's former appellate counsel and the response
brief filed by plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio.
8} In Anders, the United States Supreme
Court held that if, after a conscientious examination of the
record, appellate counsel concludes that a defendant's
case is wholly frivolous, counsel should so advise the court
and request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744.
Counsel must accompany the request to withdraw with a brief
outlining anything in the record that arguably could support
the defendant's appeal. Id. Counsel must also:
(1) furnish the defendant with a ...