Anders brief in Ohio

2006Thomas received a sentence of seventeen months on the first count, two years on the third degree domestic violence charge, and two years on the escape charges with all the sentences to be served concurrently. {¶ 2} Thomas' appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief in which he has identified as a possible arguable issue whether the trial court erred in sentencing Thomas to more than the minimum concurrent sentences without making the findings required by R.C. 2929.14 , specifically that Thomas had previously served a prison term. {¶ 3} Revised Code Section 2929.14 states in pertinent part: {¶

2006Appellant's counsel then states that the assignments of error lack merit due to this court's finding that Blakely does not apply to Ohio's felony sentencing scheme. {¶ 16} After appellant's counsel filed his Anders brief, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , applied Blakely to Ohio's felony sentencing scheme and severed, inter alia, R.C. 2929.14 (B) and (C) and 2929.19 (B)(2) (required judicial findings prior to the imposition of a maximum sentence) and R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4) and 2929.41 (A) (required judicial factfinding prior to the imposition of con

2018Id. {¶ 5} Here, our review reveals counsel failed to include the required contents of an Anders brief, the required statement of compliance, the required motion to withdraw, and the required language reflecting compliance with service of the Anders brief upon 2. appellant.

2016Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel. {¶ 6} The City of Toledo has not filed a response to appointed counsel’s Anders brief. {¶ 7} The procedure to be followed by appointed counsel who desires to withdraw for want of a meritorious, appealable issue is set forth in Anders, as well as State v. Duncan, 57 Ohio App.2d 93 , 385 N.E.2d 323 (8th Dist.1978) and State v. Stigall, 6th Dist.

2023WASHINGTON (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .” {¶17} This Court issued a judgment entry notifying appellant that his counsel filed an Anders brief, and allowing appellant file a pro se brief within sixty days of the entry.

2023WASHINGTON (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .” {¶17} This Court issued a judgment entry notifying appellant that his counsel filed an Anders brief, and allowing appellant file a pro se brief within sixty days of the entry.

2026Id. {¶7} By Judgment Entry filed October 27, 2025, this Court indicated that it had received notice pursuant to Anders that Attorney Bazeley provided Appellant a copy of the Anders brief.

2026Id. {¶8} By Judgment Entry filed October 9, 2025, this Court indicated that it had received notice pursuant to Anders that Attorney Campbell provided Appellant a copy of the Anders brief.

2018Id. at syllabus. {¶12} Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief on August 9, 2017.

2017It is further Ordered that [Appellant] shall pay reasonable Restitution in the amount of Twenty-One Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Three and No/100 Dollars ($21,153.00), to Belmont Park Commission, and a Civil Judgment is granted in that sum. (3/18/15 J.E., p. 2.) Anders brief -5- {¶11} Appointed appellate counsel filed a no merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.E.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Toney, 23 Ohio App.2d 203 , 262 N.E.2d 419 (7th Dist.1970), and requested leave to withdraw from the case.

2007We disagree. {¶ 6} In State v. Foster , the Ohio Supreme Court held that, under the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , and Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 , portions of Ohio's sentencing scheme were unconstitutional because they required judicial fact finding before a defendant could be sentenced to serve maximum sentence, and/or consecutive sentences.

2005Accordingly, this court shall proceed with an examination of the potential assignment of error set forth by counsel for appellant and the entire record below to determine if this appeal lacks merit and is, therefore, wholly frivolous. {¶ 6} The potential assignment of error raised in counsel's Anders' brief concerns whether, in sentencing appellant, the trial court erroneously considered facts not admitted by appellant, in violation of appellant's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and contrary to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Blakely, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531 .

2007We disagree. {¶ 6} In State v. Foster , the Ohio Supreme Court held that, under the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , and Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 , portions of Ohio's sentencing scheme were unconstitutional because they required judicial fact finding before a defendant could be sentenced to serve maximum sentence, and/or consecutive sentences.

2007We disagree. {¶ 6} In State v. Foster , the Ohio Supreme Court held that, under the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , and Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 , portions of Ohio's sentencing scheme were unconstitutional because they required judicial fact finding before a defendant could be sentenced to serve maximum sentence, and/or consecutive sentences.

2007"THE FAILURE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO CONSISTENTLY OBJECT TO VARIOUS RULINGS BY THE JUDGE RESULTED IN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL." {¶ 12} In order to prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate: (1) that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) that the defendant was prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness. *Page 5 Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 . {¶ 13} Here, we review three specific instances cited by appellate counsel in support of appellant's claim f

2003Ineffective Assistance of Counsel {¶ 5} In order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of trial counsel, Defendant must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient (fell below an objective standard of reasonable representation), and that Defendant was prejudiced by counsel's performance (there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of Defendant's trial or proceeding would have been different.) Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 . {¶ 6} At the sentencing hearing Defendant complained ab

2023Summit No. 29176, 2019-Ohio-2542, ¶ 4 .

2022Summit No. 291765, 2019-Ohio-2542, ¶ 4 .

2022No. 16AP-487, 2017-Ohio-7680, ¶ 16 . {¶ 25} When an appellate court receives an Anders brief, it must conduct an examination of the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous.

2019No. 16AP-487, 2017-Ohio-7680, ¶ 18 . {¶ 27} Applying the Anders standard to the present case, this court has undertaken a review of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.

2022Montgomery No. 29249, 2022-Ohio-2170, ¶ 5 .

2022Montgomery No. 29249, 2022-Ohio-2170, ¶ 5 . {¶ 8} In the present case, the Anders brief identifies the following two issues that Evans’ appellate counsel considered: (1) whether the trial court erred to the prejudice of Evans by sentencing him without informing him of his right to appeal the conviction and sentence; and (2) whether the trial court erred by sentencing Evans to the maximum of 36 months in prison.

2022“An Anders brief ‘permit[s] an attorney who, after conscientious examination of the record, concludes that a criminal appeal is wholly frivolous to so advise the court and request permission to withdraw, provided that his request is accompanied with a brief identifying anything in the record that could arguably support the client’s appeal.’” State v. Sergent, 148 Ohio St.3d 94 , 2016-Ohio-2696, ¶ 8, fn. 1 , quoting Disciplinary Counsel v. Milhoan, 142 Ohio St.3d 230 , 2014-Ohio-5459, ¶ 8 . {¶4} In his Anders brief, Mr. Roberts’ appellate counsel states that he fully reviewed the record and tri

2022“An Anders brief ‘permit[s] an attorney who, after conscientious examination of the record, concludes that a criminal appeal is wholly frivolous to so advise the court and request permission to withdraw, provided that his request is accompanied with a brief identifying anything in the record that could arguably support the client’s appeal.’” State v. Sergent, 148 Ohio St.3d 94 , 2016-Ohio-2696, ¶ 8, fn. 1 , quoting Disciplinary Counsel v. Milhoan, 142 Ohio St.3d 230 , 2014-Ohio-5459, ¶ 8 . {¶4} In his Anders brief, Mr. Roberts’ appellate counsel states that he fully reviewed the record and tri

2020Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 25 .

2020Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 25 .

2020See, e.g., State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 , ¶ 7 (the court of appeals conducted an independent review of the record to determine that a meritorious issue existed warranting full briefing); State v. Gilbert, 143 Ohio St.3d 150 , 2014-Ohio-4562 , 35 N.E.3d 493, ¶ 25 ; see also State v. Upkins, 154 Ohio St.3d 30 , 2018-Ohio-1812 , ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 19 (Fischer, J., dissenting) (string citing decisions in which an Anders brief was filed and rejected by the appellate court).

2020See, e.g., State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 , ¶ 7 (the court of appeals conducted an independent review of the record to determine that a meritorious issue existed warranting full briefing); State v. Gilbert, 143 Ohio St.3d 150 , 2014-Ohio-4562 , 35 N.E.3d 493, ¶ 25 ; see also State v. Upkins, 154 Ohio St.3d 30 , 2018-Ohio-1812 , ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 19 (Fischer, J., dissenting) (string citing decisions in which an Anders brief was filed and rejected by the appellate court).

2019Id. at 741 , citing Ellis v. United States (1958), 356 U.S. 674, 675 .

2007However, assigned counsel subsequently filed a motion to withdraw and an "Anders brief," in accordance with the United States Supreme Court decision of Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738 . *Page 3 {¶ 6} In Anders , the Supreme Court held that "[i]f counsel is convinced, after conscientious investigation, that the appeal is frivolous, * * * he may ask to withdraw on that account." Id. at 741 , citing Ellis v. United States (1958), 356 U.S. 674 , 675 .

2019Also, in State v. Wenner, 2018-Ohio-2590 , 114 N.E.3d 800 (6th Dist.), the Sixth Appellate District adopted the holding in Wilson and declared that the court will no longer accept motions to withdraw or briefs filed pursuant to Anders.

2019Also, in State v. Wenner, 2018-Ohio-2590 , 114 N.E.3d 800 (6th Dist.), the Sixth Appellate District adopted the holding in Wilson and declared that the court will no longer accept motions to withdraw or briefs filed pursuant to Anders.

2018Id. {¶ 87} The March 2, 2017 evidentiary hearing related to a motion based on Gonzales I, 150 Ohio St.3d 261 , 2016-Ohio-8319 , 81 N.E.3d 405 .

2018Montgomery No. 27530, 2018-Ohio-2220, ¶ 4 .

2010Washington App. No. 10CA12 4 {¶11} The state argues that the Supreme Court of Ohio approved the same postrelease control notification procedure used by the trial court here in State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008-Ohio-1197 , 884 N.E.2d 568 .

2009Mr. Houston appeals his resentencing. {¶ 5} Mr. Houston's counsel, in his Anders brief, acknowledges the case of State v. Simpkins in which the Ohio Supreme Court expressly held that "in cases in which a defendant is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, an offense for which postrelease control is required but not properly included in the sentence, the sentence is void, and the state is entitled to a new sentencing hearing to have postrelease control imposed on the *Page 3 defendant unless the defendant has completed his sentence." 117 Ohio St.3d 420 , 2008-Ohio-1197 , at ¶ 6 .

2005State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 387 , 1997-Ohio-52 . {¶ 7} The weight to be given the evidence presented and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily matters for the trier of fact.

2003State v. Thompkins , supra, at 387 . {¶ 14} In the present matter, we find no suggestion of record that the jury lost its way or that its verdict constituted a manifest miscarriage of justice. {¶ 15} Accordingly, we find both of counsel's potential assignments of error wholly without merit. {¶ 16} On consideration whereof, the court finds that the issues raised in the Anders brief are without merit and wholly frivolous.